<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_2043202</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T Suggests To 300K Employees To Lobby the FCC</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256030760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several readers sent in the news that AT&amp;T's top lobbyist <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/att\_lobbyist\_asks\_employees\_th.html">sent a letter to all 300,000 employees</a> urging them to give feedback to the FCC as it gears up for rulemaking on net neutrality. He even supplied talking points approved by the PR department. The lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, suggested that employees use their personal email accounts when they weigh in with the FCC. Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/10/20/att-boss-asks-employees-fake-it">likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing</a>: "Coming from one of the company&rsquo;s most senior executives, it&rsquo;s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Several readers sent in the news that AT&amp;T 's top lobbyist sent a letter to all 300,000 employees urging them to give feedback to the FCC as it gears up for rulemaking on net neutrality .
He even supplied talking points approved by the PR department .
The lobbyist , Jim Cicconi , suggested that employees use their personal email accounts when they weigh in with the FCC .
Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi 's letter to astroturfing : " Coming from one of the company    s most senior executives , it    s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several readers sent in the news that AT&amp;T's top lobbyist sent a letter to all 300,000 employees urging them to give feedback to the FCC as it gears up for rulemaking on net neutrality.
He even supplied talking points approved by the PR department.
The lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, suggested that employees use their personal email accounts when they weigh in with the FCC.
Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing: "Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816547</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1256042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What's the big deal?</i>

</p><p>Preaching politics on the company dime is right up there with promoting religion during office hours.  It's your employer abusing their captive audience.  If you don't go along, you could be seen as not being a team player.  You're getting paid to do a job, not be a political pawn.  It worked so well for the health insurance companies, having their employees out acting like dickwads at public meetings. Be sure and remind them to change their employer branded clothing to look more like a real grassroots uprising.

</p><p>And it was wrong.  I remember when the internet went private.  I didn't hear AT&amp;T or any of the others complaining about all that new infrastructure and business they inherited.  Now that the system needs major upgrades no one wants to pony up.  Instead they want to find ways to tax traffic, make money without making any additional investment.  The Wall Street model.  Net neutrality rules threaten that grand plan.  They might not be able to cover those multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.  Oh, noes!

</p><p>Tell you what, if those circuits are that unprofitable, sell them and get out of the infrastructure business.  No one owes AT&amp;T a living.  If it's too tough out there, get into banking.  Corporate whiners are the worst.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal ?
Preaching politics on the company dime is right up there with promoting religion during office hours .
It 's your employer abusing their captive audience .
If you do n't go along , you could be seen as not being a team player .
You 're getting paid to do a job , not be a political pawn .
It worked so well for the health insurance companies , having their employees out acting like dickwads at public meetings .
Be sure and remind them to change their employer branded clothing to look more like a real grassroots uprising .
And it was wrong .
I remember when the internet went private .
I did n't hear AT&amp;T or any of the others complaining about all that new infrastructure and business they inherited .
Now that the system needs major upgrades no one wants to pony up .
Instead they want to find ways to tax traffic , make money without making any additional investment .
The Wall Street model .
Net neutrality rules threaten that grand plan .
They might not be able to cover those multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses .
Oh , noes !
Tell you what , if those circuits are that unprofitable , sell them and get out of the infrastructure business .
No one owes AT&amp;T a living .
If it 's too tough out there , get into banking .
Corporate whiners are the worst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What's the big deal?
Preaching politics on the company dime is right up there with promoting religion during office hours.
It's your employer abusing their captive audience.
If you don't go along, you could be seen as not being a team player.
You're getting paid to do a job, not be a political pawn.
It worked so well for the health insurance companies, having their employees out acting like dickwads at public meetings.
Be sure and remind them to change their employer branded clothing to look more like a real grassroots uprising.
And it was wrong.
I remember when the internet went private.
I didn't hear AT&amp;T or any of the others complaining about all that new infrastructure and business they inherited.
Now that the system needs major upgrades no one wants to pony up.
Instead they want to find ways to tax traffic, make money without making any additional investment.
The Wall Street model.
Net neutrality rules threaten that grand plan.
They might not be able to cover those multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.
Oh, noes!
Tell you what, if those circuits are that unprofitable, sell them and get out of the infrastructure business.
No one owes AT&amp;T a living.
If it's too tough out there, get into banking.
Corporate whiners are the worst.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901</id>
	<title>Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1256034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation:<br> <br>You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation : You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation: You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815365</id>
	<title>FCC sill has not given US radio space.</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1256036220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to do the last mile our selves.
The FCC needs to do there job and give
people the right to put our wireless
router on the roof and forward local traffic.
Until then its communications by the monopoly
for the monopoly.  We can not get a competition
between ISPs until the last mile can be done
without total control between 1 or 3 super providers.
<br> <br>After that, perhaps a work program can be set up
to run backbone lines as a way to make jobs for people
out of work.  It's all about creating the infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to do the last mile our selves .
The FCC needs to do there job and give people the right to put our wireless router on the roof and forward local traffic .
Until then its communications by the monopoly for the monopoly .
We can not get a competition between ISPs until the last mile can be done without total control between 1 or 3 super providers .
After that , perhaps a work program can be set up to run backbone lines as a way to make jobs for people out of work .
It 's all about creating the infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to do the last mile our selves.
The FCC needs to do there job and give
people the right to put our wireless
router on the roof and forward local traffic.
Until then its communications by the monopoly
for the monopoly.
We can not get a competition
between ISPs until the last mile can be done
without total control between 1 or 3 super providers.
After that, perhaps a work program can be set up
to run backbone lines as a way to make jobs for people
out of work.
It's all about creating the infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817801</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1256048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Government-backed unions coerce employers to negotiate with them, restrict non-union workers from being hired, mandate arbitrary make-work schemes and featherbedding practices--and, at times, have assaulted and even murdered workers independent enough to cross picket lines during strikes. - Andrew Bernstein</p></div><p>Just look at the failure and subsequent nationalization of General Motors for an example of union power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government-backed unions coerce employers to negotiate with them , restrict non-union workers from being hired , mandate arbitrary make-work schemes and featherbedding practices--and , at times , have assaulted and even murdered workers independent enough to cross picket lines during strikes .
- Andrew BernsteinJust look at the failure and subsequent nationalization of General Motors for an example of union power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government-backed unions coerce employers to negotiate with them, restrict non-union workers from being hired, mandate arbitrary make-work schemes and featherbedding practices--and, at times, have assaulted and even murdered workers independent enough to cross picket lines during strikes.
- Andrew BernsteinJust look at the failure and subsequent nationalization of General Motors for an example of union power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023</id>
	<title>Not entirely the same</title>
	<author>jlechem</author>
	<datestamp>1256034840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate.  She didn't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so.  What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.  I'm sure there are some places where this doesn't hold, but I think most office drone jobs don't apply.  I think it's pure bullshit and someone should call their sorry asses on the carpet for it.  I'll vote or lobby whoever the fuck I want and however I see fit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate .
She did n't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so .
What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work .
I 'm sure there are some places where this does n't hold , but I think most office drone jobs do n't apply .
I think it 's pure bullshit and someone should call their sorry asses on the carpet for it .
I 'll vote or lobby whoever the fuck I want and however I see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate.
She didn't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so.
What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.
I'm sure there are some places where this doesn't hold, but I think most office drone jobs don't apply.
I think it's pure bullshit and someone should call their sorry asses on the carpet for it.
I'll vote or lobby whoever the fuck I want and however I see fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817291</id>
	<title>Is net neutrality a good thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The general meme I have seen most places is that "Net Neutrality" is the only way to go.  However, I have to ask, if your ISP promises to treat all data streams equally, how are services that need guaranteed low latency going to work?</p><p>For most internet activities, such as watching youtube videos, downloading or uploading large files, and viewing web pages, a second or two of latency is no big deal.  The ISP can give you bandwidth when it has it to spare.</p><p>However, for things like online gaming, Video and audio chat, and ESPECIALLY for cloud gaming services, latency is CRITICAL.  The ISP needs to allocate the highest priority to transmitting these packets without any delay.  Even if it has to push back or pause requests from other applications.  No, a bigger pipe is not the answer : bandwidth will always be a scarce commodity, and your ISP needs to be able to make sure that certain services always have enough.</p><p>You'd have to run a client on your machine or something to specify or sign a particular packet stream as needing low latency communications. The ISP would either meter your total "low latency" bandwidth for a month or limit how much bandwidth/second it could use up.</p><p>Doing it this way might not be network neutral, but it's THE way to make services like cloud gaming and video chat work smoothly and without problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The general meme I have seen most places is that " Net Neutrality " is the only way to go .
However , I have to ask , if your ISP promises to treat all data streams equally , how are services that need guaranteed low latency going to work ? For most internet activities , such as watching youtube videos , downloading or uploading large files , and viewing web pages , a second or two of latency is no big deal .
The ISP can give you bandwidth when it has it to spare.However , for things like online gaming , Video and audio chat , and ESPECIALLY for cloud gaming services , latency is CRITICAL .
The ISP needs to allocate the highest priority to transmitting these packets without any delay .
Even if it has to push back or pause requests from other applications .
No , a bigger pipe is not the answer : bandwidth will always be a scarce commodity , and your ISP needs to be able to make sure that certain services always have enough.You 'd have to run a client on your machine or something to specify or sign a particular packet stream as needing low latency communications .
The ISP would either meter your total " low latency " bandwidth for a month or limit how much bandwidth/second it could use up.Doing it this way might not be network neutral , but it 's THE way to make services like cloud gaming and video chat work smoothly and without problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general meme I have seen most places is that "Net Neutrality" is the only way to go.
However, I have to ask, if your ISP promises to treat all data streams equally, how are services that need guaranteed low latency going to work?For most internet activities, such as watching youtube videos, downloading or uploading large files, and viewing web pages, a second or two of latency is no big deal.
The ISP can give you bandwidth when it has it to spare.However, for things like online gaming, Video and audio chat, and ESPECIALLY for cloud gaming services, latency is CRITICAL.
The ISP needs to allocate the highest priority to transmitting these packets without any delay.
Even if it has to push back or pause requests from other applications.
No, a bigger pipe is not the answer : bandwidth will always be a scarce commodity, and your ISP needs to be able to make sure that certain services always have enough.You'd have to run a client on your machine or something to specify or sign a particular packet stream as needing low latency communications.
The ISP would either meter your total "low latency" bandwidth for a month or limit how much bandwidth/second it could use up.Doing it this way might not be network neutral, but it's THE way to make services like cloud gaming and video chat work smoothly and without problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816021</id>
	<title>It's a conspiracy!!.. nah it appears hosed is all</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1256039520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your link won't load.</p><p>the front page loads but this specific link does not.</p><p>I'm tempted to jump to the conclusion of major ISP blockage, but I just tried from a dutch proxy and it appears the page really is totally hosed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your link wo n't load.the front page loads but this specific link does not.I 'm tempted to jump to the conclusion of major ISP blockage , but I just tried from a dutch proxy and it appears the page really is totally hosed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your link won't load.the front page loads but this specific link does not.I'm tempted to jump to the conclusion of major ISP blockage, but I just tried from a dutch proxy and it appears the page really is totally hosed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29828109</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shortly after forcing every employee to take an Ethics class, Alltel did the same thing...Note that doing this sort of thing was prohibited in the ethics class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shortly after forcing every employee to take an Ethics class , Alltel did the same thing...Note that doing this sort of thing was prohibited in the ethics class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shortly after forcing every employee to take an Ethics class, Alltel did the same thing...Note that doing this sort of thing was prohibited in the ethics class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29824891</id>
	<title>Re:Things look very, very bad</title>
	<author>AaronMK</author>
	<datestamp>1256146980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strange, I cannot get onto the site.  I hope this is because this letter has called Network Neutrality proponents to action in the time being, and not because the telecoms are prioritizing access to their employees, or blocking non-employees completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange , I can not get onto the site .
I hope this is because this letter has called Network Neutrality proponents to action in the time being , and not because the telecoms are prioritizing access to their employees , or blocking non-employees completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange, I cannot get onto the site.
I hope this is because this letter has called Network Neutrality proponents to action in the time being, and not because the telecoms are prioritizing access to their employees, or blocking non-employees completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816989</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because interest groups are not companies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because interest groups are not companies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because interest groups are not companies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818707</id>
	<title>No, Our Managers aren't Tracking Our Responses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm posting anonymously here - if you want me to give you AT&amp;T's official corporate opinion, I can point you to the PR department or the web site, and I'm not wearing a suit and tie and wielding a +3 Impressive Title right now.  This is strictly my personal opinions, which only agree with the company's opinions when the company's right.</p><p>Our managers aren't tracking whether we've sent in our letters to the FCC.  It's not even like the level of pressure we used to get for contributing to The United Way back in the day.  And they really really don't want 300,000 people sending in opinions that claim to be AT&amp;T's; they've had enough trouble with Ed Whitacre making that speech a few years ago about Google hogging the tubes that kick-started this mess.</p><p>Whether we get to remain employed is another matter entirely - Moore's Law means that equipment becomes more and more powerful, and can do more work with less management than ever, and while the telecom industry may not be diving over the cliff as aggressively as we were back in 2002 (between the Internet bust and the 9/11-caused decline in travel and therefore in 800-number call-center calling, which was a high-value cash cow) we're still pretty much used to annual layoffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm posting anonymously here - if you want me to give you AT&amp;T 's official corporate opinion , I can point you to the PR department or the web site , and I 'm not wearing a suit and tie and wielding a + 3 Impressive Title right now .
This is strictly my personal opinions , which only agree with the company 's opinions when the company 's right.Our managers are n't tracking whether we 've sent in our letters to the FCC .
It 's not even like the level of pressure we used to get for contributing to The United Way back in the day .
And they really really do n't want 300,000 people sending in opinions that claim to be AT&amp;T 's ; they 've had enough trouble with Ed Whitacre making that speech a few years ago about Google hogging the tubes that kick-started this mess.Whether we get to remain employed is another matter entirely - Moore 's Law means that equipment becomes more and more powerful , and can do more work with less management than ever , and while the telecom industry may not be diving over the cliff as aggressively as we were back in 2002 ( between the Internet bust and the 9/11-caused decline in travel and therefore in 800-number call-center calling , which was a high-value cash cow ) we 're still pretty much used to annual layoffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm posting anonymously here - if you want me to give you AT&amp;T's official corporate opinion, I can point you to the PR department or the web site, and I'm not wearing a suit and tie and wielding a +3 Impressive Title right now.
This is strictly my personal opinions, which only agree with the company's opinions when the company's right.Our managers aren't tracking whether we've sent in our letters to the FCC.
It's not even like the level of pressure we used to get for contributing to The United Way back in the day.
And they really really don't want 300,000 people sending in opinions that claim to be AT&amp;T's; they've had enough trouble with Ed Whitacre making that speech a few years ago about Google hogging the tubes that kick-started this mess.Whether we get to remain employed is another matter entirely - Moore's Law means that equipment becomes more and more powerful, and can do more work with less management than ever, and while the telecom industry may not be diving over the cliff as aggressively as we were back in 2002 (between the Internet bust and the 9/11-caused decline in travel and therefore in 800-number call-center calling, which was a high-value cash cow) we're still pretty much used to annual layoffs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815109</id>
	<title>i would rather pole serena williams</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I signed up to be Serena Williams training assistant, but what I got instead I still cannot believe. After being selected, I had an appointment at her estate. The front door was open, and I wandered through her place until I finally heard her behind a door. When I opened the door, I suddenly smelled the overwhelming scent of food. I walked in and saw her lying on a massive table, completely naked, surrounded by massive amounts of food. Loaved of bread, pies, steaks, gallons of water and several containers of buttermilk shakes. She was gorging down and stuffing mouthfulls of good into her mouth. She glanced at me and spoke.</p><p>"This is what 24,000 calories of food looks like, I'm gonna need it for for our workout."</p><p>I awkwardly stood in the corner until she finished, and watched her gut expand. Finally she hopped off, and squatted down, still nude. She told me to leap on her back. "I need a bit of extra weight so this isnt too easy" she said. I mounted her huge muscular back and hung on like a baby koala. She jumped up with me on her and began jogging through the house, and out the door. She ran for hours, uphill, downhill, across shallow creeks and even climbed up a cliff. I looked down and watched her huge hams of buttocks muscle bounce as she effortlessly carried me along, a perfect physique pulsing with power. Finally nightfall was coming, and she set me down. "Boy" she said "That was a little easy, and all that energy is gone, wanna see what 24,000 calories looks like coming out he other end?" Before I could respond, she bent over and moaned. Finally, a giant geyser of liquid shit launched out several feet, while a blast of urine came out with enough intensity to drill into the dirt. She went for minutes, moaning loudly. Then the pee finished and she began leaking thick white globs of juice. "Sorry" she said "That's because the whole time I was running, I was thinking of your cute face"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I signed up to be Serena Williams training assistant , but what I got instead I still can not believe .
After being selected , I had an appointment at her estate .
The front door was open , and I wandered through her place until I finally heard her behind a door .
When I opened the door , I suddenly smelled the overwhelming scent of food .
I walked in and saw her lying on a massive table , completely naked , surrounded by massive amounts of food .
Loaved of bread , pies , steaks , gallons of water and several containers of buttermilk shakes .
She was gorging down and stuffing mouthfulls of good into her mouth .
She glanced at me and spoke .
" This is what 24,000 calories of food looks like , I 'm gon na need it for for our workout .
" I awkwardly stood in the corner until she finished , and watched her gut expand .
Finally she hopped off , and squatted down , still nude .
She told me to leap on her back .
" I need a bit of extra weight so this isnt too easy " she said .
I mounted her huge muscular back and hung on like a baby koala .
She jumped up with me on her and began jogging through the house , and out the door .
She ran for hours , uphill , downhill , across shallow creeks and even climbed up a cliff .
I looked down and watched her huge hams of buttocks muscle bounce as she effortlessly carried me along , a perfect physique pulsing with power .
Finally nightfall was coming , and she set me down .
" Boy " she said " That was a little easy , and all that energy is gone , wan na see what 24,000 calories looks like coming out he other end ?
" Before I could respond , she bent over and moaned .
Finally , a giant geyser of liquid shit launched out several feet , while a blast of urine came out with enough intensity to drill into the dirt .
She went for minutes , moaning loudly .
Then the pee finished and she began leaking thick white globs of juice .
" Sorry " she said " That 's because the whole time I was running , I was thinking of your cute face "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I signed up to be Serena Williams training assistant, but what I got instead I still cannot believe.
After being selected, I had an appointment at her estate.
The front door was open, and I wandered through her place until I finally heard her behind a door.
When I opened the door, I suddenly smelled the overwhelming scent of food.
I walked in and saw her lying on a massive table, completely naked, surrounded by massive amounts of food.
Loaved of bread, pies, steaks, gallons of water and several containers of buttermilk shakes.
She was gorging down and stuffing mouthfulls of good into her mouth.
She glanced at me and spoke.
"This is what 24,000 calories of food looks like, I'm gonna need it for for our workout.
"I awkwardly stood in the corner until she finished, and watched her gut expand.
Finally she hopped off, and squatted down, still nude.
She told me to leap on her back.
"I need a bit of extra weight so this isnt too easy" she said.
I mounted her huge muscular back and hung on like a baby koala.
She jumped up with me on her and began jogging through the house, and out the door.
She ran for hours, uphill, downhill, across shallow creeks and even climbed up a cliff.
I looked down and watched her huge hams of buttocks muscle bounce as she effortlessly carried me along, a perfect physique pulsing with power.
Finally nightfall was coming, and she set me down.
"Boy" she said "That was a little easy, and all that energy is gone, wanna see what 24,000 calories looks like coming out he other end?
" Before I could respond, she bent over and moaned.
Finally, a giant geyser of liquid shit launched out several feet, while a blast of urine came out with enough intensity to drill into the dirt.
She went for minutes, moaning loudly.
Then the pee finished and she began leaking thick white globs of juice.
"Sorry" she said "That's because the whole time I was running, I was thinking of your cute face"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816025</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1256039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, this *is* AT&amp;T, a company that was allowed to get away with blatant violations of the law and snooping on American citizens without a warrant.</p><p>In fact, the one thing we know with absolute certainty is that they *can* tell if the employees have followed the CEO's <i>suggestion</i>.</p><p>Oh, yeah . .  that. . .</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this * is * AT&amp;T , a company that was allowed to get away with blatant violations of the law and snooping on American citizens without a warrant.In fact , the one thing we know with absolute certainty is that they * can * tell if the employees have followed the CEO 's suggestion.Oh , yeah .
. that .
. .Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this *is* AT&amp;T, a company that was allowed to get away with blatant violations of the law and snooping on American citizens without a warrant.In fact, the one thing we know with absolute certainty is that they *can* tell if the employees have followed the CEO's suggestion.Oh, yeah .
.  that.
. .Pug</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29825817</id>
	<title>corporate income taxes are 1/4 of individual taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its strange how much power corporations have in influencing the government because if you visit the IRS.gov website, you will find that corporate income taxes collected by the federal government are only 1/4 the amount of individual income taxes collected! we individuals should have 4x more power and influence in the govt compared to corporations. however that is not the case and the opposite is more true, corporations are the ones strongly influencing government policies to their own business benefit at the cost of making life worse for the individual. we need to wake up and kick some serious butt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its strange how much power corporations have in influencing the government because if you visit the IRS.gov website , you will find that corporate income taxes collected by the federal government are only 1/4 the amount of individual income taxes collected !
we individuals should have 4x more power and influence in the govt compared to corporations .
however that is not the case and the opposite is more true , corporations are the ones strongly influencing government policies to their own business benefit at the cost of making life worse for the individual .
we need to wake up and kick some serious butt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its strange how much power corporations have in influencing the government because if you visit the IRS.gov website, you will find that corporate income taxes collected by the federal government are only 1/4 the amount of individual income taxes collected!
we individuals should have 4x more power and influence in the govt compared to corporations.
however that is not the case and the opposite is more true, corporations are the ones strongly influencing government policies to their own business benefit at the cost of making life worse for the individual.
we need to wake up and kick some serious butt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819665</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One big fucking difference. The union can't fire you, the company can! I think your bridge in Brooklyn is just made up and you don't know diddlyshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One big fucking difference .
The union ca n't fire you , the company can !
I think your bridge in Brooklyn is just made up and you do n't know diddlyshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big fucking difference.
The union can't fire you, the company can!
I think your bridge in Brooklyn is just made up and you don't know diddlyshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817945</id>
	<title>Certainly was a suggestion ...</title>
	<author>kebbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1256049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As one of the people who actually got this email, I can say with certainty that it was a suggestion.  The internal communication pointed out that regulation impacts our jobs and suggested it would be good for the company to agree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... everyone at AT&amp;T is well aware that no one's job is in any way impacted no matter what they do with the suggestion.  Obviously if someone is looking to move up in the company they'll support the message, but that isn't a statement on net neutrality, thats business.

Personally, I ignored the email but talked to my coworkers about it (we're a network design group so this is spot on with what we do) and that includes management<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is a non topic.  Companies get successful because they do whats in their best interests<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you don't like what they do, don't use their products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of the people who actually got this email , I can say with certainty that it was a suggestion .
The internal communication pointed out that regulation impacts our jobs and suggested it would be good for the company to agree ... everyone at AT&amp;T is well aware that no one 's job is in any way impacted no matter what they do with the suggestion .
Obviously if someone is looking to move up in the company they 'll support the message , but that is n't a statement on net neutrality , thats business .
Personally , I ignored the email but talked to my coworkers about it ( we 're a network design group so this is spot on with what we do ) and that includes management ... this is a non topic .
Companies get successful because they do whats in their best interests ... if you do n't like what they do , do n't use their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of the people who actually got this email, I can say with certainty that it was a suggestion.
The internal communication pointed out that regulation impacts our jobs and suggested it would be good for the company to agree ... everyone at AT&amp;T is well aware that no one's job is in any way impacted no matter what they do with the suggestion.
Obviously if someone is looking to move up in the company they'll support the message, but that isn't a statement on net neutrality, thats business.
Personally, I ignored the email but talked to my coworkers about it (we're a network design group so this is spot on with what we do) and that includes management ... this is a non topic.
Companies get successful because they do whats in their best interests ... if you don't like what they do, don't use their products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816001</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Trails</author>
	<datestamp>1256039340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, he can tell.  You see, Bill Gates has developed a new email tracking software, so if you forward that to the fcc, you could win $100,000</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , he can tell .
You see , Bill Gates has developed a new email tracking software , so if you forward that to the fcc , you could win $ 100,000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, he can tell.
You see, Bill Gates has developed a new email tracking software, so if you forward that to the fcc, you could win $100,000</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816933</id>
	<title>Re:Always err on the side of reducing power</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1256044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen, but have not actually come to pass? </i></p><p>What, like blocking users who download too much then refusing to admit it even after tools are produced to show that Comcast was generating spoofed RST packets?  Oh no, that would <i>never</i> come to pass.</p><p><i>Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.</i></p><p>Last I heard, Sandvine is doing pretty good... oh wait, the people whose applications stop working aren't Sandvine's customers.</p><p>The reason this is going to happen is the same reason that health reform is happening: no matter how much FUD the opponents throw out there, their FUD can't hold a candle to the reality of how it is now.  "Oh no, nobody will invest in teh terabitz intarwebs!" but hey, at least Comcast won't be able to block me from using <a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/10/comcast-traffic-blocking-even-more-apps-groupware-clients-affected.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Lotus Notes</a> [arstechnica.com].</p><p>Sure, there are good reasons not to change the regulation on either, but the industries are trying their damnedest to make sure that everyone knows the reasons why we should.  You'd think that with health care reform breathing down their necks, insurers would take a timeout on refusing coverage due to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/begala.health.care/index.html" title="cnn.com">unrelated issues</a> [cnn.com], but no, as far as I can tell, they're fanning the flames to ensure that they'll have the hottest funeral pyres around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen , but have not actually come to pass ?
What , like blocking users who download too much then refusing to admit it even after tools are produced to show that Comcast was generating spoofed RST packets ?
Oh no , that would never come to pass.Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.Last I heard , Sandvine is doing pretty good... oh wait , the people whose applications stop working are n't Sandvine 's customers.The reason this is going to happen is the same reason that health reform is happening : no matter how much FUD the opponents throw out there , their FUD ca n't hold a candle to the reality of how it is now .
" Oh no , nobody will invest in teh terabitz intarwebs !
" but hey , at least Comcast wo n't be able to block me from using Lotus Notes [ arstechnica.com ] .Sure , there are good reasons not to change the regulation on either , but the industries are trying their damnedest to make sure that everyone knows the reasons why we should .
You 'd think that with health care reform breathing down their necks , insurers would take a timeout on refusing coverage due to unrelated issues [ cnn.com ] , but no , as far as I can tell , they 're fanning the flames to ensure that they 'll have the hottest funeral pyres around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen, but have not actually come to pass?
What, like blocking users who download too much then refusing to admit it even after tools are produced to show that Comcast was generating spoofed RST packets?
Oh no, that would never come to pass.Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.Last I heard, Sandvine is doing pretty good... oh wait, the people whose applications stop working aren't Sandvine's customers.The reason this is going to happen is the same reason that health reform is happening: no matter how much FUD the opponents throw out there, their FUD can't hold a candle to the reality of how it is now.
"Oh no, nobody will invest in teh terabitz intarwebs!
" but hey, at least Comcast won't be able to block me from using Lotus Notes [arstechnica.com].Sure, there are good reasons not to change the regulation on either, but the industries are trying their damnedest to make sure that everyone knows the reasons why we should.
You'd think that with health care reform breathing down their necks, insurers would take a timeout on refusing coverage due to unrelated issues [cnn.com], but no, as far as I can tell, they're fanning the flames to ensure that they'll have the hottest funeral pyres around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817781</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process.</p></div><p>They're both communications with a rule-making body of the government. I fail to see any difference between them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice , but here we 're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative , we 're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process.They 're both communications with a rule-making body of the government .
I fail to see any difference between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process.They're both communications with a rule-making body of the government.
I fail to see any difference between them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816769</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1256043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you could if the site wasn't down due to a database error.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you could if the site was n't down due to a database error .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you could if the site wasn't down due to a database error.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I  also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business. It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process. Comments filed in a formal rulemaking process are public records. In fact, the FCC has an online <a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch\_v2.cgi" title="fcc.gov">search system</a> [fcc.gov] that lets you search all filed comments, by, among other things, the name of the person or entity filing the comment, and the results include additional information like the mailing address of the filer.</p><p>Consequently, especially if you are only worried about positive confirmation (IOW, if you don't mind some false negatives, but want to be fairly immune to false positives), its pretty easy for an employer to check if their employees have followed through on such a "recommendation."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business .
It does n't matter where the urging comes from since it 's not like the CEO can tell that you 've followed his suggestion or not.That 's nice , but here we 're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative , we 're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process .
Comments filed in a formal rulemaking process are public records .
In fact , the FCC has an online search system [ fcc.gov ] that lets you search all filed comments , by , among other things , the name of the person or entity filing the comment , and the results include additional information like the mailing address of the filer.Consequently , especially if you are only worried about positive confirmation ( IOW , if you do n't mind some false negatives , but want to be fairly immune to false positives ) , its pretty easy for an employer to check if their employees have followed through on such a " recommendation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I  also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business.
It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process.
Comments filed in a formal rulemaking process are public records.
In fact, the FCC has an online search system [fcc.gov] that lets you search all filed comments, by, among other things, the name of the person or entity filing the comment, and the results include additional information like the mailing address of the filer.Consequently, especially if you are only worried about positive confirmation (IOW, if you don't mind some false negatives, but want to be fairly immune to false positives), its pretty easy for an employer to check if their employees have followed through on such a "recommendation.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815397</id>
	<title>mo3 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">suufering *BSD a productivity</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>suufering * BSD a productivity [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suufering *BSD a productivity [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817711</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted. Also don't forget to vote on the comments already there. As this may bring the important bits to the top of the poo pile that the corporations are throwing in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted .
Also do n't forget to vote on the comments already there .
As this may bring the important bits to the top of the poo pile that the corporations are throwing in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted.
Also don't forget to vote on the comments already there.
As this may bring the important bits to the top of the poo pile that the corporations are throwing in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815373</id>
	<title>Surprised? You shouldn't be</title>
	<author>Woodmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1256036220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, now folks... we really shouldn't believe this is really all that out-of-the-ordinary.
<p>
In fact, it was only a few days ago that <a href="http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-13/" title="dilbert.com" rel="nofollow">Dilbert's company suggested the same thing.</a> [dilbert.com]
</p><p>
See? Same old same old.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , now folks... we really should n't believe this is really all that out-of-the-ordinary .
In fact , it was only a few days ago that Dilbert 's company suggested the same thing .
[ dilbert.com ] See ?
Same old same old.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, now folks... we really shouldn't believe this is really all that out-of-the-ordinary.
In fact, it was only a few days ago that Dilbert's company suggested the same thing.
[dilbert.com]

See?
Same old same old.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815573</id>
	<title>We NEED a Public Option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256037420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let AT&amp;T censor their Internet, and we can all switch to the un-filtered Public Option. Hell, it would be way cheaper than Health Care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let AT&amp;T censor their Internet , and we can all switch to the un-filtered Public Option .
Hell , it would be way cheaper than Health Care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let AT&amp;T censor their Internet, and we can all switch to the un-filtered Public Option.
Hell, it would be way cheaper than Health Care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29823507</id>
	<title>View from the ground</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone to whom that letter was addressed, I've definitely been treating it as a suggestion. I don't feel like the higher-ups are trying to make some kind of slave out of me... they're just panicking a little. Which is understandable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone to whom that letter was addressed , I 've definitely been treating it as a suggestion .
I do n't feel like the higher-ups are trying to make some kind of slave out of me... they 're just panicking a little .
Which is understandable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone to whom that letter was addressed, I've definitely been treating it as a suggestion.
I don't feel like the higher-ups are trying to make some kind of slave out of me... they're just panicking a little.
Which is understandable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816035</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally, the members of the FSF aren't employees of the FSF. The whole point of the public comment process is to collect the public's opinion, not the "suggested" opinions of AT&amp;T employees. This is more like the lame-ass astroturf the health insurers tried earlier this year when they "suggested" that their employees should write to Congress opposing reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally , the members of the FSF are n't employees of the FSF .
The whole point of the public comment process is to collect the public 's opinion , not the " suggested " opinions of AT&amp;T employees .
This is more like the lame-ass astroturf the health insurers tried earlier this year when they " suggested " that their employees should write to Congress opposing reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally, the members of the FSF aren't employees of the FSF.
The whole point of the public comment process is to collect the public's opinion, not the "suggested" opinions of AT&amp;T employees.
This is more like the lame-ass astroturf the health insurers tried earlier this year when they "suggested" that their employees should write to Congress opposing reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815649</id>
	<title>good</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1256037720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>now the FCC can just set a spam filter to trash ever email with the keyword "net neutrality" and go forward in implementing legislation enforcing net neutrality for all common carriers and anyone that breaks net neutrality will be find double and lose common carrier status.</htmltext>
<tokenext>now the FCC can just set a spam filter to trash ever email with the keyword " net neutrality " and go forward in implementing legislation enforcing net neutrality for all common carriers and anyone that breaks net neutrality will be find double and lose common carrier status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now the FCC can just set a spam filter to trash ever email with the keyword "net neutrality" and go forward in implementing legislation enforcing net neutrality for all common carriers and anyone that breaks net neutrality will be find double and lose common carrier status.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819539</id>
	<title>Is this a real problem?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So can someone point to a real problem that has actually occurred that "Net Neutrality" would fix?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So can someone point to a real problem that has actually occurred that " Net Neutrality " would fix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can someone point to a real problem that has actually occurred that "Net Neutrality" would fix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815563</id>
	<title>Re:Not entirely the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.</p></div><p>I agree 100\%</p><p>A couple years ago I had a similar situation happen to me.  It was suggested in a mass-email to comment on an anti-spam law, except to do so against the bill (IE to favor spamming)</p><p>This sort of took me by surprise, as I worked in the IT department, and at the time we did NO email advertisements, nor used any services to do so.  So I figured, why on earth would this be the case unless A) we planned to spam, or B) the boss simply didn't understand the matter.</p><p>I made the same asumption.  What I do on my own time and from my own email address is not work.  If they want that time, or those resources (email), they are damn sure going to pay me for them.</p><p>I silently ignored the request.</p><p>Half a year or so went by and I forgot all about it.   I came in on a Monday to learn that the FCC comment postings are public record, and you can lookup the email/name of everyone that posted.<br>Needless to say, my name was no where to be found.</p><p>At this point I was given some team player speech and told why in pretty blunt terms.  After explaining why I do not agree, and that it would be a death sentence for our company to advertise that way.</p><p>Boss made the stupid mistake of explaining the errors of my ways in email.<br>He asked me to resign, which I refused.  The next day I was fired.</p><p>Fortunately for me, this is not a valid reason to terminate someones employment, and I got a nice settlement out of the lawsuit to live on before finding my next job.</p><p>Oddest part of the whole story, that company STILL does not spam that I can tell, or that any of my ex-coworkers in their IT department know of.  I am left with the belief that the boss had other reasons for this, not related to that company.<br>Who knows what type of business he does on the side after all.</p><p>In the end, I am very happy with the new job I found, and have no regrets over what happened.</p><p>Just thought I would share.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.I agree 100 \ % A couple years ago I had a similar situation happen to me .
It was suggested in a mass-email to comment on an anti-spam law , except to do so against the bill ( IE to favor spamming ) This sort of took me by surprise , as I worked in the IT department , and at the time we did NO email advertisements , nor used any services to do so .
So I figured , why on earth would this be the case unless A ) we planned to spam , or B ) the boss simply did n't understand the matter.I made the same asumption .
What I do on my own time and from my own email address is not work .
If they want that time , or those resources ( email ) , they are damn sure going to pay me for them.I silently ignored the request.Half a year or so went by and I forgot all about it .
I came in on a Monday to learn that the FCC comment postings are public record , and you can lookup the email/name of everyone that posted.Needless to say , my name was no where to be found.At this point I was given some team player speech and told why in pretty blunt terms .
After explaining why I do not agree , and that it would be a death sentence for our company to advertise that way.Boss made the stupid mistake of explaining the errors of my ways in email.He asked me to resign , which I refused .
The next day I was fired.Fortunately for me , this is not a valid reason to terminate someones employment , and I got a nice settlement out of the lawsuit to live on before finding my next job.Oddest part of the whole story , that company STILL does not spam that I can tell , or that any of my ex-coworkers in their IT department know of .
I am left with the belief that the boss had other reasons for this , not related to that company.Who knows what type of business he does on the side after all.In the end , I am very happy with the new job I found , and have no regrets over what happened.Just thought I would share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.I agree 100\%A couple years ago I had a similar situation happen to me.
It was suggested in a mass-email to comment on an anti-spam law, except to do so against the bill (IE to favor spamming)This sort of took me by surprise, as I worked in the IT department, and at the time we did NO email advertisements, nor used any services to do so.
So I figured, why on earth would this be the case unless A) we planned to spam, or B) the boss simply didn't understand the matter.I made the same asumption.
What I do on my own time and from my own email address is not work.
If they want that time, or those resources (email), they are damn sure going to pay me for them.I silently ignored the request.Half a year or so went by and I forgot all about it.
I came in on a Monday to learn that the FCC comment postings are public record, and you can lookup the email/name of everyone that posted.Needless to say, my name was no where to be found.At this point I was given some team player speech and told why in pretty blunt terms.
After explaining why I do not agree, and that it would be a death sentence for our company to advertise that way.Boss made the stupid mistake of explaining the errors of my ways in email.He asked me to resign, which I refused.
The next day I was fired.Fortunately for me, this is not a valid reason to terminate someones employment, and I got a nice settlement out of the lawsuit to live on before finding my next job.Oddest part of the whole story, that company STILL does not spam that I can tell, or that any of my ex-coworkers in their IT department know of.
I am left with the belief that the boss had other reasons for this, not related to that company.Who knows what type of business he does on the side after all.In the end, I am very happy with the new job I found, and have no regrets over what happened.Just thought I would share.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816893</id>
	<title>First Amendment *RIGHT* - so get over it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow"> <b>Amendment I</b> </a> [cornell.edu]</p><p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and <b>to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amendment I [ cornell.edu ] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Amendment I  [cornell.edu]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29821443</id>
	<title>Oh, the irony</title>
	<author>Pravetz-82</author>
	<datestamp>1256127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a week ago: <a href="http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-10-13/" title="dilbert.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-10-13/</a> [dilbert.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a week ago : http : //www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-10-13/ [ dilbert.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a week ago: http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-10-13/ [dilbert.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815813</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon did this as well</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Will be trying to switch job soon."</p><p>Perhaps the FCC will assist you changing careers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will be trying to switch job soon .
" Perhaps the FCC will assist you changing careers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will be trying to switch job soon.
"Perhaps the FCC will assist you changing careers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817187</id>
	<title>US-Only Phenomenon?</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my twenty-something years as an employee I have never seen this sort of corporate "suggestion".  I'm in Australia.  I mainly worked for Australian companies, but have worked in a subsidiary of a very large US company.  I see a few concrete examples in the replies so far, but they all seem to be US residents.  Does this crap happen outside of the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my twenty-something years as an employee I have never seen this sort of corporate " suggestion " .
I 'm in Australia .
I mainly worked for Australian companies , but have worked in a subsidiary of a very large US company .
I see a few concrete examples in the replies so far , but they all seem to be US residents .
Does this crap happen outside of the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my twenty-something years as an employee I have never seen this sort of corporate "suggestion".
I'm in Australia.
I mainly worked for Australian companies, but have worked in a subsidiary of a very large US company.
I see a few concrete examples in the replies so far, but they all seem to be US residents.
Does this crap happen outside of the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816535</id>
	<title>Freudian slip</title>
	<author>Known Nutter</author>
	<datestamp>1256042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>In the letter, he offered several talking points.<br>
1.Wireless consumers enjoy a many options for mobile services...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Tall about your Freudian slip!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : In the letter , he offered several talking points .
1.Wireless consumers enjoy a many options for mobile services.. . Tall about your Freudian slip !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:In the letter, he offered several talking points.
1.Wireless consumers enjoy a many options for mobile services...
Tall about your Freudian slip!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816571</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon did this as well</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1256042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will be trying to switch job soon.</p></div><p>Why? Do you believe that the competition will be any different? Are they going to track you down and find out that you ignored their suggestion to lobby from a personal non-work e-mail account? You can probably ignore the e-mail and life will still go on. Have no illusions that the system isn't corrupt because it absolutely is corrupt; in fact, its rotten to the core. This why I smirk whenever I hear President Obama talk about how the government is going to root out waste and become the salvation of our economy. If big government is the answer then why did the War on Poverty and the Great Society programs of the 1960s fail to achieve their stated objectives? If one studies economics and works the political calculations through to their logical conclusions then the only position which makes any sense is to have less government. However, few people are honest enough to publicly advocate that position.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will be trying to switch job soon.Why ?
Do you believe that the competition will be any different ?
Are they going to track you down and find out that you ignored their suggestion to lobby from a personal non-work e-mail account ?
You can probably ignore the e-mail and life will still go on .
Have no illusions that the system is n't corrupt because it absolutely is corrupt ; in fact , its rotten to the core .
This why I smirk whenever I hear President Obama talk about how the government is going to root out waste and become the salvation of our economy .
If big government is the answer then why did the War on Poverty and the Great Society programs of the 1960s fail to achieve their stated objectives ?
If one studies economics and works the political calculations through to their logical conclusions then the only position which makes any sense is to have less government .
However , few people are honest enough to publicly advocate that position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will be trying to switch job soon.Why?
Do you believe that the competition will be any different?
Are they going to track you down and find out that you ignored their suggestion to lobby from a personal non-work e-mail account?
You can probably ignore the e-mail and life will still go on.
Have no illusions that the system isn't corrupt because it absolutely is corrupt; in fact, its rotten to the core.
This why I smirk whenever I hear President Obama talk about how the government is going to root out waste and become the salvation of our economy.
If big government is the answer then why did the War on Poverty and the Great Society programs of the 1960s fail to achieve their stated objectives?
If one studies economics and works the political calculations through to their logical conclusions then the only position which makes any sense is to have less government.
However, few people are honest enough to publicly advocate that position.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815035</id>
	<title>Scummy...</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1256034900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but supposing all the employees actually respond, what do you think the FCC is going to make of several hundred thousand email from a single domain owned by a company with vested interests in the process? If they can't spot such blatant astroturfing, I'd be amazed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but supposing all the employees actually respond , what do you think the FCC is going to make of several hundred thousand email from a single domain owned by a company with vested interests in the process ?
If they ca n't spot such blatant astroturfing , I 'd be amazed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but supposing all the employees actually respond, what do you think the FCC is going to make of several hundred thousand email from a single domain owned by a company with vested interests in the process?
If they can't spot such blatant astroturfing, I'd be amazed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816243</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1256040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, your employer can't fire you either, since they have no way of knowing whether or not you voted along their advice, or wrote a letter to the FCC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , your employer ca n't fire you either , since they have no way of knowing whether or not you voted along their advice , or wrote a letter to the FCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, your employer can't fire you either, since they have no way of knowing whether or not you voted along their advice, or wrote a letter to the FCC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1256037720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Any large organization will want to control its masses.<br></i></p><p>True.  The big difference between an employer trying to influence its employees politics and a union trying to influence its members politics is that an employer can fire employees, while a union can't.  That's kind of a large difference in terms of power influence.  Union officials are also generally elected positions, so the power flows the other way as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any large organization will want to control its masses.True .
The big difference between an employer trying to influence its employees politics and a union trying to influence its members politics is that an employer can fire employees , while a union ca n't .
That 's kind of a large difference in terms of power influence .
Union officials are also generally elected positions , so the power flows the other way as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any large organization will want to control its masses.True.
The big difference between an employer trying to influence its employees politics and a union trying to influence its members politics is that an employer can fire employees, while a union can't.
That's kind of a large difference in terms of power influence.
Union officials are also generally elected positions, so the power flows the other way as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815287</id>
	<title>newworldorder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noez, the koreprits are taking over everybody!!1</p><p>Businesses used to hire speakers to conduct speaking tours and preach the pro-business gospel to employees.  The US once <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">promoted one such speaker to President.</a> [wikipedia.org]  This was back when the US still had an industrial base so this is probably news to our younger readers.</p><p>The fact is that business has, over time, become less presumptuous with regard to directly influencing the political thinking of its captive audience.  There is nothing 'new' about this facet of 'worldorder' and claiming such is certain ignorance.</p><p>In any case this is all perfectly legal despite whatever knee-jerk anti-business reaction you've been trained to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noez , the koreprits are taking over everybody !
! 1Businesses used to hire speakers to conduct speaking tours and preach the pro-business gospel to employees .
The US once promoted one such speaker to President .
[ wikipedia.org ] This was back when the US still had an industrial base so this is probably news to our younger readers.The fact is that business has , over time , become less presumptuous with regard to directly influencing the political thinking of its captive audience .
There is nothing 'new ' about this facet of 'worldorder ' and claiming such is certain ignorance.In any case this is all perfectly legal despite whatever knee-jerk anti-business reaction you 've been trained to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noez, the koreprits are taking over everybody!
!1Businesses used to hire speakers to conduct speaking tours and preach the pro-business gospel to employees.
The US once promoted one such speaker to President.
[wikipedia.org]  This was back when the US still had an industrial base so this is probably news to our younger readers.The fact is that business has, over time, become less presumptuous with regard to directly influencing the political thinking of its captive audience.
There is nothing 'new' about this facet of 'worldorder' and claiming such is certain ignorance.In any case this is all perfectly legal despite whatever knee-jerk anti-business reaction you've been trained to have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815161</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet millions of people send chain e-mails every single day.</p><p>Sure the CEO can't tell anybody followed his suggestion, but how many people actually KNOW he can't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet millions of people send chain e-mails every single day.Sure the CEO ca n't tell anybody followed his suggestion , but how many people actually KNOW he ca n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet millions of people send chain e-mails every single day.Sure the CEO can't tell anybody followed his suggestion, but how many people actually KNOW he can't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815779</id>
	<title>Tehre going to get into a little</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256038320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trouble if they do this. management telling employees what to do regarding political matters is risky. Ass soon as  a few employees claim to feel pressured, their will be a lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trouble if they do this .
management telling employees what to do regarding political matters is risky .
Ass soon as a few employees claim to feel pressured , their will be a lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trouble if they do this.
management telling employees what to do regarding political matters is risky.
Ass soon as  a few employees claim to feel pressured, their will be a lawsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817205</id>
	<title>Re:Always err on the side of reducing power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Continuing with more evidence that all this and more has "come to pass":<br><a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035\_22-141592.html" title="zdnet.com">Vonage and other VoIP providers had more than one ISP prevent customers from receiving the services they were paying for until the government stepped in.</a> [zdnet.com]<br><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/06/05/148234.shtml" title="slashdot.org">BT replacing charities' web advertisements with their own</a> [slashdot.org].  Charities!  Why don't they just eat warm puppies fresh from the oven while they're at it?  The least they could have done was replace those "punch the monkey" ads or seizure inducing "you've won!" ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Continuing with more evidence that all this and more has " come to pass " : Vonage and other VoIP providers had more than one ISP prevent customers from receiving the services they were paying for until the government stepped in .
[ zdnet.com ] BT replacing charities ' web advertisements with their own [ slashdot.org ] .
Charities ! Why do n't they just eat warm puppies fresh from the oven while they 're at it ?
The least they could have done was replace those " punch the monkey " ads or seizure inducing " you 've won !
" ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Continuing with more evidence that all this and more has "come to pass":Vonage and other VoIP providers had more than one ISP prevent customers from receiving the services they were paying for until the government stepped in.
[zdnet.com]BT replacing charities' web advertisements with their own [slashdot.org].
Charities!  Why don't they just eat warm puppies fresh from the oven while they're at it?
The least they could have done was replace those "punch the monkey" ads or seizure inducing "you've won!
" ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819723</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think AT&amp;T doesn't know what emails you send you don't know diddly shit either. You people are all stupid as hell. They monitor EVERYTHING!. What the hell do you think the NarusInsight is for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think AT&amp;T does n't know what emails you send you do n't know diddly shit either .
You people are all stupid as hell .
They monitor EVERYTHING ! .
What the hell do you think the NarusInsight is for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think AT&amp;T doesn't know what emails you send you don't know diddly shit either.
You people are all stupid as hell.
They monitor EVERYTHING!.
What the hell do you think the NarusInsight is for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815255</id>
	<title>Re:Scummy...</title>
	<author>rimugu</author>
	<datestamp>1256035740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new to any government and government like entity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new to any government and government like entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new to any government and government like entity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845</id>
	<title>Always err on the side of reducing power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website. You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.</i></p><p>I would urge Slashdot readers to comment AGAINST net neutrality.</p><p>At first the term sounds great, like warm puppies or brownies fresh from the oven.</p><p>But if you think about it, "net neutrality" is a guise for the FCC being able to tell companies how to manage a network.</p><p>And for what?  Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen, but have not actually come to pass?  Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.</p><p>Do you really gain significant benefit from it?  And in the meantime you've given the FCC a mandate for even more power, even more oversight, even more people saying "well hey, I should control that thing over there too".</p><p>This should be the mantra going forward for every debate, on any subject - does it increase the power of government over the people they govern?  The answer at this point, should always be no - we have gone way too far down the path of meddling and all the truly helpful regulations are in place already.  It is time, to unwind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC 's net neutrality website .
You can do the same , you have until Thursday to post.I would urge Slashdot readers to comment AGAINST net neutrality.At first the term sounds great , like warm puppies or brownies fresh from the oven.But if you think about it , " net neutrality " is a guise for the FCC being able to tell companies how to manage a network.And for what ?
Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen , but have not actually come to pass ?
Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.Do you really gain significant benefit from it ?
And in the meantime you 've given the FCC a mandate for even more power , even more oversight , even more people saying " well hey , I should control that thing over there too " .This should be the mantra going forward for every debate , on any subject - does it increase the power of government over the people they govern ?
The answer at this point , should always be no - we have gone way too far down the path of meddling and all the truly helpful regulations are in place already .
It is time , to unwind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website.
You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.I would urge Slashdot readers to comment AGAINST net neutrality.At first the term sounds great, like warm puppies or brownies fresh from the oven.But if you think about it, "net neutrality" is a guise for the FCC being able to tell companies how to manage a network.And for what?
Because people have posted a bunch of fear-laden scenarios about what might happen, but have not actually come to pass?
Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.Do you really gain significant benefit from it?
And in the meantime you've given the FCC a mandate for even more power, even more oversight, even more people saying "well hey, I should control that thing over there too".This should be the mantra going forward for every debate, on any subject - does it increase the power of government over the people they govern?
The answer at this point, should always be no - we have gone way too far down the path of meddling and all the truly helpful regulations are in place already.
It is time, to unwind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815581</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>uniquename72</author>
	<datestamp>1256037480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently slashdotted - unless my ISP is blocking me!! <br>
(&amp; thanks for the link!!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently slashdotted - unless my ISP is blocking me ! !
( &amp; thanks for the link ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently slashdotted - unless my ISP is blocking me!!
(&amp; thanks for the link!!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815077</id>
	<title>Talking points...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>revoked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>revoked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>revoked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818875</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>electrons\_are\_brave</author>
	<datestamp>1256055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I notice that in the US that only 12.4\% of your workforce is in unions (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf). So, lordy knows why people are crediting them with such astonishing power - they can't even get people to join, let alone "obey" them. To say they have the same power over a worker as an employer is crazy. If people don't agree with or want to be in a union they leave. <p>

My understanding of the US industrial landscape is scanty, but I've been told that in a minority of cases there are still "closed shops" (I know they aren't called that in the US) in industries like construction. And, yes, for all practical purposes, being a member in those instances probably isn't optional. But that's a very small minority of cases. </p><p> The main reason people join - and stay in unions -  is not because they are forced to. It's simply that unionized workplaces have higher wages and lower accident rates (once industry differences in these rates are factored out). Relying on the employer to do the right thing is noticably flawed as a strategy </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice that in the US that only 12.4 \ % of your workforce is in unions ( http : //www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf ) .
So , lordy knows why people are crediting them with such astonishing power - they ca n't even get people to join , let alone " obey " them .
To say they have the same power over a worker as an employer is crazy .
If people do n't agree with or want to be in a union they leave .
My understanding of the US industrial landscape is scanty , but I 've been told that in a minority of cases there are still " closed shops " ( I know they are n't called that in the US ) in industries like construction .
And , yes , for all practical purposes , being a member in those instances probably is n't optional .
But that 's a very small minority of cases .
The main reason people join - and stay in unions - is not because they are forced to .
It 's simply that unionized workplaces have higher wages and lower accident rates ( once industry differences in these rates are factored out ) .
Relying on the employer to do the right thing is noticably flawed as a strategy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice that in the US that only 12.4\% of your workforce is in unions (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf).
So, lordy knows why people are crediting them with such astonishing power - they can't even get people to join, let alone "obey" them.
To say they have the same power over a worker as an employer is crazy.
If people don't agree with or want to be in a union they leave.
My understanding of the US industrial landscape is scanty, but I've been told that in a minority of cases there are still "closed shops" (I know they aren't called that in the US) in industries like construction.
And, yes, for all practical purposes, being a member in those instances probably isn't optional.
But that's a very small minority of cases.
The main reason people join - and stay in unions -  is not because they are forced to.
It's simply that unionized workplaces have higher wages and lower accident rates (once industry differences in these rates are factored out).
Relying on the employer to do the right thing is noticably flawed as a strategy </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816567</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standard?</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1256042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know that there is a difference between "member of an organization" and "employee", right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know that there is a difference between " member of an organization " and " employee " , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know that there is a difference between "member of an organization" and "employee", right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815053</id>
	<title>Begone with yer net neutrality!</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1256034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spoke the sheep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoke the sheep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoke the sheep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815561</id>
	<title>Re:Coming from a high level exec - why not skip?</title>
	<author>adwarf</author>
	<datestamp>1256037300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, the CEO tells people things that are important to your company (and thus your job in the sense that if the company does poorly you might be out of one).  They assume that their employees are interested in opportunities to help support their company, which may not be true.


I get these all the time, if I bother to read them I certainly think of them as a suggestion and nothing more.


Now if you were a high level employee and were found out you were lobbying against the interest of the company that is a completely different story (and justifiable from the shareholders point of view).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , the CEO tells people things that are important to your company ( and thus your job in the sense that if the company does poorly you might be out of one ) .
They assume that their employees are interested in opportunities to help support their company , which may not be true .
I get these all the time , if I bother to read them I certainly think of them as a suggestion and nothing more .
Now if you were a high level employee and were found out you were lobbying against the interest of the company that is a completely different story ( and justifiable from the shareholders point of view ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, the CEO tells people things that are important to your company (and thus your job in the sense that if the company does poorly you might be out of one).
They assume that their employees are interested in opportunities to help support their company, which may not be true.
I get these all the time, if I bother to read them I certainly think of them as a suggestion and nothing more.
Now if you were a high level employee and were found out you were lobbying against the interest of the company that is a completely different story (and justifiable from the shareholders point of view).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816691</id>
	<title>Wall Street?</title>
	<author>daemonburrito</author>
	<datestamp>1256043300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have cable television. It's awful. If you think that ESPN360 is really the next stage in innovation on the internet, you seriously misunderstand what makes the internet special.</p><p>The framework contains "Reasonable Network Management" language. It's more than I would compromise, and more than these companies deserve, but it's there.</p><p>Your talking points basically amount to a threat: If backbones and ISPs are not allowed to alter or degrade traffic based on their business relationship with those hosting content (or even, perhaps, the authors of the OS or the manufacturer of the hardware), they'll quit building infrastructure, allegedly because "Wall Street" wishes it so.</p><p>Weak sauce. Was that really "too good not to repost"? Unimpressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have cable television .
It 's awful .
If you think that ESPN360 is really the next stage in innovation on the internet , you seriously misunderstand what makes the internet special.The framework contains " Reasonable Network Management " language .
It 's more than I would compromise , and more than these companies deserve , but it 's there.Your talking points basically amount to a threat : If backbones and ISPs are not allowed to alter or degrade traffic based on their business relationship with those hosting content ( or even , perhaps , the authors of the OS or the manufacturer of the hardware ) , they 'll quit building infrastructure , allegedly because " Wall Street " wishes it so.Weak sauce .
Was that really " too good not to repost " ?
Unimpressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have cable television.
It's awful.
If you think that ESPN360 is really the next stage in innovation on the internet, you seriously misunderstand what makes the internet special.The framework contains "Reasonable Network Management" language.
It's more than I would compromise, and more than these companies deserve, but it's there.Your talking points basically amount to a threat: If backbones and ISPs are not allowed to alter or degrade traffic based on their business relationship with those hosting content (or even, perhaps, the authors of the OS or the manufacturer of the hardware), they'll quit building infrastructure, allegedly because "Wall Street" wishes it so.Weak sauce.
Was that really "too good not to repost"?
Unimpressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815893</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The accusations the Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl are false. I patently refuse to believe the wide spread rumor that Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl, such speculation that Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl have no basis in fact, no matter what any court may say.</p><p>If you are offended, then you missed the joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The accusations the Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl are false .
I patently refuse to believe the wide spread rumor that Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl , such speculation that Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl have no basis in fact , no matter what any court may say.If you are offended , then you missed the joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The accusations the Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl are false.
I patently refuse to believe the wide spread rumor that Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl, such speculation that Jim raped and murdered a 12 year old girl have no basis in fact, no matter what any court may say.If you are offended, then you missed the joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815839</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>xeniast</author>
	<datestamp>1256038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Net neutrality  is the White House take-over of the net <p>
Net neutrality means the end of the net as we have known it. </p><p>
Net neutrality means the end of free speech on the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality is the White House take-over of the net Net neutrality means the end of the net as we have known it .
Net neutrality means the end of free speech on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality  is the White House take-over of the net 
Net neutrality means the end of the net as we have known it.
Net neutrality means the end of free speech on the net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815057</id>
	<title>There FCC!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Subtract 300,000 from the tally of folks who are against Net Neutrality! <p>Actually, subtract 1.2 million because the American family averages 4 people and you know that every AT&amp;T employee will have their spouse and 2 kids lobby. And, if you include the bogus ones that are named for the dog, well, the numbers just keep growing. </p><p>Let's just put it this way, every letter <i>against</i> Net Neutrality is bogus because of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subtract 300,000 from the tally of folks who are against Net Neutrality !
Actually , subtract 1.2 million because the American family averages 4 people and you know that every AT&amp;T employee will have their spouse and 2 kids lobby .
And , if you include the bogus ones that are named for the dog , well , the numbers just keep growing .
Let 's just put it this way , every letter against Net Neutrality is bogus because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subtract 300,000 from the tally of folks who are against Net Neutrality!
Actually, subtract 1.2 million because the American family averages 4 people and you know that every AT&amp;T employee will have their spouse and 2 kids lobby.
And, if you include the bogus ones that are named for the dog, well, the numbers just keep growing.
Let's just put it this way, every letter against Net Neutrality is bogus because of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Tackhead</author>
	<datestamp>1256036520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation:
</p><p>
You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I am writing on behalf of a Jim Cicconi at AT&amp;T.  He can always be found<br>
hard at work in his office.  He lobbies independently, but never stoops to<br>
donating to opposition party members. Jim is consistent in that he only<br>
lobbies in order to help America innovate in telecom, but never<br>
offers bribes in exchange for their support. Jim often takes extended<br>
measures to complete his lobbying, sometimes skipping coffee and lunch<br>
breaks. Jim is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no<br>
vanity in spite of his leadership skills, record of high accomplishments,<br>
moral scruples and knowledge in his field. I firmly believe that Jim can<br>
be classed as a top-tier lobbyist, and his recommendations cannot<br>
be easily dispensed with. Consequently, I duly recommend that Jim be<br>
appointed to regulatory office, and that this appointment should be<br>
executed as soon as possible.</p><p>
Attempting to influence public policy by means of astroturfing is an art; one sometimes has to<br>
read between the lines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation : You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed .
I am writing on behalf of a Jim Cicconi at AT&amp;T .
He can always be found hard at work in his office .
He lobbies independently , but never stoops to donating to opposition party members .
Jim is consistent in that he only lobbies in order to help America innovate in telecom , but never offers bribes in exchange for their support .
Jim often takes extended measures to complete his lobbying , sometimes skipping coffee and lunch breaks .
Jim is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no vanity in spite of his leadership skills , record of high accomplishments , moral scruples and knowledge in his field .
I firmly believe that Jim can be classed as a top-tier lobbyist , and his recommendations can not be easily dispensed with .
Consequently , I duly recommend that Jim be appointed to regulatory office , and that this appointment should be executed as soon as possible .
Attempting to influence public policy by means of astroturfing is an art ; one sometimes has to read between the lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is getting blown way out of proportion and has a simple explanation:

You also have to BCC your immediate manager to remain employed.
I am writing on behalf of a Jim Cicconi at AT&amp;T.
He can always be found
hard at work in his office.
He lobbies independently, but never stoops to
donating to opposition party members.
Jim is consistent in that he only
lobbies in order to help America innovate in telecom, but never
offers bribes in exchange for their support.
Jim often takes extended
measures to complete his lobbying, sometimes skipping coffee and lunch
breaks.
Jim is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no
vanity in spite of his leadership skills, record of high accomplishments,
moral scruples and knowledge in his field.
I firmly believe that Jim can
be classed as a top-tier lobbyist, and his recommendations cannot
be easily dispensed with.
Consequently, I duly recommend that Jim be
appointed to regulatory office, and that this appointment should be
executed as soon as possible.
Attempting to influence public policy by means of astroturfing is an art; one sometimes has to
read between the lines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818491</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at a lot of the astroturfing comments on the openinternet site, you'll see how ridiculously ignorant most of them are. A huge percentage of them are of the form "keep the government from taking over the internet!", which makes about as much sense as "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"</p><p>The Internet was FOUNDED by the US government, with most of the vital underlying technologies coming from ARPANET and NSFNET (though I should give credit to those European governments responsible for funding CERN, where Tim Berners-Lee invented HTTP and the web). This nonsense about how the wonders of the free market and private enterprise created the Internet is a willful and gross rewriting of history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at a lot of the astroturfing comments on the openinternet site , you 'll see how ridiculously ignorant most of them are .
A huge percentage of them are of the form " keep the government from taking over the internet !
" , which makes about as much sense as " keep your government hands off my Medicare !
" The Internet was FOUNDED by the US government , with most of the vital underlying technologies coming from ARPANET and NSFNET ( though I should give credit to those European governments responsible for funding CERN , where Tim Berners-Lee invented HTTP and the web ) .
This nonsense about how the wonders of the free market and private enterprise created the Internet is a willful and gross rewriting of history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at a lot of the astroturfing comments on the openinternet site, you'll see how ridiculously ignorant most of them are.
A huge percentage of them are of the form "keep the government from taking over the internet!
", which makes about as much sense as "keep your government hands off my Medicare!
"The Internet was FOUNDED by the US government, with most of the vital underlying technologies coming from ARPANET and NSFNET (though I should give credit to those European governments responsible for funding CERN, where Tim Berners-Lee invented HTTP and the web).
This nonsense about how the wonders of the free market and private enterprise created the Internet is a willful and gross rewriting of history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816881</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their paycheck doesn't depend on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their paycheck does n't depend on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their paycheck doesn't depend on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819031</id>
	<title>Justify mutiny?</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1256056680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, sure, everyone thinks AT&amp;T is \_evil\_.  Fine.  More anger because it cannot be proven.  But do they not have rights to loyal employees?  Or do two wrongs make a right?</p><p>People who work at AT&amp;T should broadly agree with the company lest they help something they deplore.  If they are "just there for the money", then they've sold out and they cannot claim their free opinion is worth much.  Of course, those whine the loudest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , sure , everyone thinks AT&amp;T is \ _evil \ _ .
Fine. More anger because it can not be proven .
But do they not have rights to loyal employees ?
Or do two wrongs make a right ? People who work at AT&amp;T should broadly agree with the company lest they help something they deplore .
If they are " just there for the money " , then they 've sold out and they can not claim their free opinion is worth much .
Of course , those whine the loudest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, sure, everyone thinks AT&amp;T is \_evil\_.
Fine.  More anger because it cannot be proven.
But do they not have rights to loyal employees?
Or do two wrongs make a right?People who work at AT&amp;T should broadly agree with the company lest they help something they deplore.
If they are "just there for the money", then they've sold out and they cannot claim their free opinion is worth much.
Of course, those whine the loudest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29823251</id>
	<title>How is this different from Chairman Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's got lackying in white lab coats.  He's got your kids signing up for brown shirts.  He's got you walking through black panthers at the voting booth.  And he's got your parents getting the crap beat out of them by SEIU members on Obama's payroll while in line to vote.</p><p>So if AT&amp;T wants to keep it's business from being confiscated by Obama by telling it's employees to help them, then good for them.  I hope it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's got lackying in white lab coats .
He 's got your kids signing up for brown shirts .
He 's got you walking through black panthers at the voting booth .
And he 's got your parents getting the crap beat out of them by SEIU members on Obama 's payroll while in line to vote.So if AT&amp;T wants to keep it 's business from being confiscated by Obama by telling it 's employees to help them , then good for them .
I hope it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's got lackying in white lab coats.
He's got your kids signing up for brown shirts.
He's got you walking through black panthers at the voting booth.
And he's got your parents getting the crap beat out of them by SEIU members on Obama's payroll while in line to vote.So if AT&amp;T wants to keep it's business from being confiscated by Obama by telling it's employees to help them, then good for them.
I hope it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816649</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon did this as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Will be trying to switch job soon.<br>Working for the government I assume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Will be trying to switch job soon.Working for the government I assume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Will be trying to switch job soon.Working for the government I assume.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817667</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website.  You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.  </p></div><p>Aren't you going to tell us what to say?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC 's net neutrality website .
You can do the same , you have until Thursday to post .
Are n't you going to tell us what to say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website.
You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.
Aren't you going to tell us what to say?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815547</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256037240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T is porked anyway.  I think the whole twisted-pair pair thing died about 5 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is porked anyway .
I think the whole twisted-pair pair thing died about 5 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is porked anyway.
I think the whole twisted-pair pair thing died about 5 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816283</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>hobo sapiens</author>
	<datestamp>1256041080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all true.  I worked for the company in question for years and this is nothing new.  Before net neutrality, there was cable vs dsl.  Before that, there was UNE-P (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/U/UNE\_P.html).  Before that, there was SBC vs ATT for long distance.  Before that, there was probably some other bogeyman that they tried to rally everyone against.</p><p>Here's the thing: I never once contributed to their PAC.  Not even once.  I didn't use Cingular, I used a competing carrier until Cingular's service got better than the competition.  I still use an AT&amp;T DSL connection and phone service, even though I no longer work there.  Why?  I will choose to spend my money on whomever provides the best service at my price point.  I made that clear to everyone I used to work with who gave me grief.</p><p>My job was never once threatened.  I never received a bad review, never got any flack at all.  I left of my own volition.  Now, if I still worked there, I would never do what they are asking.  I don't think there would be trouble over that.</p><p>The sad part is, though, many many many of those 300K employees *will* allow themselves be coerced to send this email, even without understanding what the fuss is about.  This is more about people doing what they are told than some corporation "encouraging" employees to vote a certain way.  That happens everywhere, and it's not fair to stick it to AT&amp;T over this as though they are doing something unusual and outrageous.  It's the mindless mass of people who go along with this, despite the fact that any implicit threat is empty.  Any thinking person would realize that there's nothing they can really do about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all true .
I worked for the company in question for years and this is nothing new .
Before net neutrality , there was cable vs dsl .
Before that , there was UNE-P ( http : //www.webopedia.com/TERM/U/UNE \ _P.html ) .
Before that , there was SBC vs ATT for long distance .
Before that , there was probably some other bogeyman that they tried to rally everyone against.Here 's the thing : I never once contributed to their PAC .
Not even once .
I did n't use Cingular , I used a competing carrier until Cingular 's service got better than the competition .
I still use an AT&amp;T DSL connection and phone service , even though I no longer work there .
Why ? I will choose to spend my money on whomever provides the best service at my price point .
I made that clear to everyone I used to work with who gave me grief.My job was never once threatened .
I never received a bad review , never got any flack at all .
I left of my own volition .
Now , if I still worked there , I would never do what they are asking .
I do n't think there would be trouble over that.The sad part is , though , many many many of those 300K employees * will * allow themselves be coerced to send this email , even without understanding what the fuss is about .
This is more about people doing what they are told than some corporation " encouraging " employees to vote a certain way .
That happens everywhere , and it 's not fair to stick it to AT&amp;T over this as though they are doing something unusual and outrageous .
It 's the mindless mass of people who go along with this , despite the fact that any implicit threat is empty .
Any thinking person would realize that there 's nothing they can really do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all true.
I worked for the company in question for years and this is nothing new.
Before net neutrality, there was cable vs dsl.
Before that, there was UNE-P (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/U/UNE\_P.html).
Before that, there was SBC vs ATT for long distance.
Before that, there was probably some other bogeyman that they tried to rally everyone against.Here's the thing: I never once contributed to their PAC.
Not even once.
I didn't use Cingular, I used a competing carrier until Cingular's service got better than the competition.
I still use an AT&amp;T DSL connection and phone service, even though I no longer work there.
Why?  I will choose to spend my money on whomever provides the best service at my price point.
I made that clear to everyone I used to work with who gave me grief.My job was never once threatened.
I never received a bad review, never got any flack at all.
I left of my own volition.
Now, if I still worked there, I would never do what they are asking.
I don't think there would be trouble over that.The sad part is, though, many many many of those 300K employees *will* allow themselves be coerced to send this email, even without understanding what the fuss is about.
This is more about people doing what they are told than some corporation "encouraging" employees to vote a certain way.
That happens everywhere, and it's not fair to stick it to AT&amp;T over this as though they are doing something unusual and outrageous.
It's the mindless mass of people who go along with this, despite the fact that any implicit threat is empty.
Any thinking person would realize that there's nothing they can really do about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817833</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256049060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please post on the FCC site! Lots of the posts are misguided (out of ignorance or malice, probably a mix), and I don't see enough posts trying to explain net neutrality. At this rate most posts are against net neutrality. Not good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please post on the FCC site !
Lots of the posts are misguided ( out of ignorance or malice , probably a mix ) , and I do n't see enough posts trying to explain net neutrality .
At this rate most posts are against net neutrality .
Not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please post on the FCC site!
Lots of the posts are misguided (out of ignorance or malice, probably a mix), and I don't see enough posts trying to explain net neutrality.
At this rate most posts are against net neutrality.
Not good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29822673</id>
	<title>Big Deal</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1256136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every major company has a Political Action Committee, or PAC and does things like this. A few times a year I receive emails and videos from the President/CEO about their standpoint on political issues. The last one we received had to do with potential changes in the way international earnings were reported for tax reasons. Most people just laugh them off or ignore them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every major company has a Political Action Committee , or PAC and does things like this .
A few times a year I receive emails and videos from the President/CEO about their standpoint on political issues .
The last one we received had to do with potential changes in the way international earnings were reported for tax reasons .
Most people just laugh them off or ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every major company has a Political Action Committee, or PAC and does things like this.
A few times a year I receive emails and videos from the President/CEO about their standpoint on political issues.
The last one we received had to do with potential changes in the way international earnings were reported for tax reasons.
Most people just laugh them off or ignore them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Company tells people to vote a particular way: Bad.<br>Union tells people to vote a particular way: Good.<br>Because the Company is all about its own self interest.<br>Unions are for the employees and don't have any self interests.</p><p>If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.</p><p>Any large organization will want to control its masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Company tells people to vote a particular way : Bad.Union tells people to vote a particular way : Good.Because the Company is all about its own self interest.Unions are for the employees and do n't have any self interests.If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.Any large organization will want to control its masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company tells people to vote a particular way: Bad.Union tells people to vote a particular way: Good.Because the Company is all about its own self interest.Unions are for the employees and don't have any self interests.If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.Any large organization will want to control its masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819743</id>
	<title>Re:Things look very, very bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see. So thanks to government intervention, we have companies like AT&amp;T delivering all of your traffic straight to the NSA and throttling traffic they don't like. So to fix this, let's get the government to intervene. Brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see .
So thanks to government intervention , we have companies like AT&amp;T delivering all of your traffic straight to the NSA and throttling traffic they do n't like .
So to fix this , let 's get the government to intervene .
Brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see.
So thanks to government intervention, we have companies like AT&amp;T delivering all of your traffic straight to the NSA and throttling traffic they don't like.
So to fix this, let's get the government to intervene.
Brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816147</id>
	<title>300,000 employees?</title>
	<author>wardk</author>
	<datestamp>1256040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they may as well lobby, they sure aren't working hard to extend coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they may as well lobby , they sure are n't working hard to extend coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they may as well lobby, they sure aren't working hard to extend coverage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817411</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1256046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you not see that part that says "The FCC has not yet begun an official proceeding on this topic. Accordingly, postings on this site at this time may not be included in the Commission&rsquo;s official record of its proceedings"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you not see that part that says " The FCC has not yet begun an official proceeding on this topic .
Accordingly , postings on this site at this time may not be included in the Commission    s official record of its proceedings "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you not see that part that says "The FCC has not yet begun an official proceeding on this topic.
Accordingly, postings on this site at this time may not be included in the Commission’s official record of its proceedings"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815149</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's AT&amp;T. They'll just watch for the traffic on the line and let the wiretaps do the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's AT&amp;T .
They 'll just watch for the traffic on the line and let the wiretaps do the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's AT&amp;T.
They'll just watch for the traffic on the line and let the wiretaps do the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815251</id>
	<title>Yes, they can tell!</title>
	<author>mbkennel</author>
	<datestamp>1256035740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.</i></p><p>In many circumstances where the government asks people to comment (e.g. changes to SEC rules), all comments, along with names are made public.</p><p>So yes, they probably can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter where the urging comes from since it 's not like the CEO can tell that you 've followed his suggestion or not.In many circumstances where the government asks people to comment ( e.g .
changes to SEC rules ) , all comments , along with names are made public.So yes , they probably can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.In many circumstances where the government asks people to comment (e.g.
changes to SEC rules), all comments, along with names are made public.So yes, they probably can tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815519</id>
	<title>Re:Not entirely the same</title>
	<author>xanthines-R-yummy</author>
	<datestamp>1256037000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work."</i> <br> <br>Funny. Spoken like someone who's never been paged at home before... And about the healthcare debate too!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work .
" Funny .
Spoken like someone who 's never been paged at home before... And about the healthcare debate too !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.
"  Funny.
Spoken like someone who's never been paged at home before... And about the healthcare debate too!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273</id>
	<title>Verizon did this as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Verizon employee and received an email sent to basically all different sub-companies and departments about this. They even created a theme site about it, how to take action in different ways...</p><p>Will be trying to switch job soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Verizon employee and received an email sent to basically all different sub-companies and departments about this .
They even created a theme site about it , how to take action in different ways...Will be trying to switch job soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Verizon employee and received an email sent to basically all different sub-companies and departments about this.
They even created a theme site about it, how to take action in different ways...Will be trying to switch job soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816113</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256040120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Company tells people to vote a particular way: Bad.<br>Union tells people to vote a particular way: Good.</p></div></blockquote><p>A union's relationship to its members is more analogous to a corporation's relationship to its shareholders than a corporation's relationship to its employees. Sure, you can have bad managers (and union leadership are managers <i>of the union</i>, though they have different titles) acting in the managers' self-interest rather than members'/shareholders' shared interest in either case, but a corporation's management doesn't even <i>in theory</i> work in the interest of the employees, it works in the interest of the shareholders.</p><p>So there is a pretty big difference between union leadership making recommendations on political actions to the people whose shared interests they are paid to represent, and a corporation's management making recommendation for political action to their "human resources".</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Company tells people to vote a particular way : Bad.Union tells people to vote a particular way : Good.A union 's relationship to its members is more analogous to a corporation 's relationship to its shareholders than a corporation 's relationship to its employees .
Sure , you can have bad managers ( and union leadership are managers of the union , though they have different titles ) acting in the managers ' self-interest rather than members'/shareholders ' shared interest in either case , but a corporation 's management does n't even in theory work in the interest of the employees , it works in the interest of the shareholders.So there is a pretty big difference between union leadership making recommendations on political actions to the people whose shared interests they are paid to represent , and a corporation 's management making recommendation for political action to their " human resources " .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company tells people to vote a particular way: Bad.Union tells people to vote a particular way: Good.A union's relationship to its members is more analogous to a corporation's relationship to its shareholders than a corporation's relationship to its employees.
Sure, you can have bad managers (and union leadership are managers of the union, though they have different titles) acting in the managers' self-interest rather than members'/shareholders' shared interest in either case, but a corporation's management doesn't even in theory work in the interest of the employees, it works in the interest of the shareholders.So there is a pretty big difference between union leadership making recommendations on political actions to the people whose shared interests they are paid to represent, and a corporation's management making recommendation for political action to their "human resources".
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815667</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256037840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I worked at UPS we were instructed to write letters to representatives. The supervisors recited, we wrote and signed. I knew then it was skirting legality, but I was 19 at the time and didn't put up much of a fight. Fast forward ten years and I was asked to do the same thing for another company in the pharm business. That time I laughed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked at UPS we were instructed to write letters to representatives .
The supervisors recited , we wrote and signed .
I knew then it was skirting legality , but I was 19 at the time and did n't put up much of a fight .
Fast forward ten years and I was asked to do the same thing for another company in the pharm business .
That time I laughed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked at UPS we were instructed to write letters to representatives.
The supervisors recited, we wrote and signed.
I knew then it was skirting legality, but I was 19 at the time and didn't put up much of a fight.
Fast forward ten years and I was asked to do the same thing for another company in the pharm business.
That time I laughed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815959</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess who is the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php" title="opensecrets.org">number one political gift donor</a> [opensecrets.org] in America is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess who is the number one political gift donor [ opensecrets.org ] in America is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess who is the number one political gift donor [opensecrets.org] in America is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817819</id>
	<title>much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1256048940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for AT&amp;T and this is the first I've heard of this letter. And I'm one of those geeks that actually hangs out on the company's HR intranet site a few times a week. No one I work with has heard of this thing, and none of us really care about net neutrality in general. Personally, I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides of the divide and don't really have an opinion on the matter strong enough to share. But to state that my employer is "urging" me and all of my coworkers to vote a certain way is preposterous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for AT&amp;T and this is the first I 've heard of this letter .
And I 'm one of those geeks that actually hangs out on the company 's HR intranet site a few times a week .
No one I work with has heard of this thing , and none of us really care about net neutrality in general .
Personally , I 've seen reasonable arguments on both sides of the divide and do n't really have an opinion on the matter strong enough to share .
But to state that my employer is " urging " me and all of my coworkers to vote a certain way is preposterous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for AT&amp;T and this is the first I've heard of this letter.
And I'm one of those geeks that actually hangs out on the company's HR intranet site a few times a week.
No one I work with has heard of this thing, and none of us really care about net neutrality in general.
Personally, I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides of the divide and don't really have an opinion on the matter strong enough to share.
But to state that my employer is "urging" me and all of my coworkers to vote a certain way is preposterous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818049</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1256050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am writing on behalf of Julius Genachowski at the FCC.  He is not <br>
part of a government for sale, nor does he use his power to to influence <br>
and control individuals to satisfy his vision of doing things <i>The Government<br>
Way</i>.  Julius often skips the fancy perks that come with being a <br>
preeminent central planner - like passing along insider stock tips to friends, <br>
engaging in mutual back-scratching, or joining boards of directors after his tenure<br>
has expired. Julius is consistent - he doesn't desire great wealth or fancy <br>
cars, he is completely satisfied with ruling.  Even though Julius is perfectly<br>
aware of the enormous power he wields - and it's relationship to the massive<br>
centralization of power in the federal government, you can be sure that Julius <br>
will remain discreet, say the right things, and ensure the preservation and <br>
growth of power for rising ranks of power-lusters ready to fill his shoes.<br>
Julius understands full well the intricacies of transforming individual liberty<br>
into government control, and the intellectual knots required to keep people<br>
desiring this transfer.  Consequently, I duly recommend that Julius be<br>
appointed appointed for life, and that this appointment should be<br>
executed as soon as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am writing on behalf of Julius Genachowski at the FCC .
He is not part of a government for sale , nor does he use his power to to influence and control individuals to satisfy his vision of doing things The Government Way .
Julius often skips the fancy perks that come with being a preeminent central planner - like passing along insider stock tips to friends , engaging in mutual back-scratching , or joining boards of directors after his tenure has expired .
Julius is consistent - he does n't desire great wealth or fancy cars , he is completely satisfied with ruling .
Even though Julius is perfectly aware of the enormous power he wields - and it 's relationship to the massive centralization of power in the federal government , you can be sure that Julius will remain discreet , say the right things , and ensure the preservation and growth of power for rising ranks of power-lusters ready to fill his shoes .
Julius understands full well the intricacies of transforming individual liberty into government control , and the intellectual knots required to keep people desiring this transfer .
Consequently , I duly recommend that Julius be appointed appointed for life , and that this appointment should be executed as soon as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am writing on behalf of Julius Genachowski at the FCC.
He is not 
part of a government for sale, nor does he use his power to to influence 
and control individuals to satisfy his vision of doing things The Government
Way.
Julius often skips the fancy perks that come with being a 
preeminent central planner - like passing along insider stock tips to friends, 
engaging in mutual back-scratching, or joining boards of directors after his tenure
has expired.
Julius is consistent - he doesn't desire great wealth or fancy 
cars, he is completely satisfied with ruling.
Even though Julius is perfectly
aware of the enormous power he wields - and it's relationship to the massive
centralization of power in the federal government, you can be sure that Julius 
will remain discreet, say the right things, and ensure the preservation and 
growth of power for rising ranks of power-lusters ready to fill his shoes.
Julius understands full well the intricacies of transforming individual liberty
into government control, and the intellectual knots required to keep people
desiring this transfer.
Consequently, I duly recommend that Julius be
appointed appointed for life, and that this appointment should be
executed as soon as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815643</id>
	<title>Re:Not entirely the same</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1256037720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate. She didn't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so. </i></p><p>I think most companies have certain social or political beliefs, and it's reasonable to expect they might want to ask their employees to help out, whether that's contributing time or money to a charity, signing a petition, or even writing a letter to Congress.  It's just as reasonable to expect that a certain number of employees would want to participate.</p><p>The difference here is that we're talking about AT&amp;T, not the employees of a small company with narrow or limited interests.  I'd suggest that if the rules for a company that wields that much power can't be made different, then their actions should be more carefully scrutinised for abuses.</p><p><i>What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.</i></p><p>Perhaps, but it can be ideal when they complement each other.  If I was an avid amateur organic farmer and was an employee of Whole Foods, I'd certainly be happy to assist the company in advocating, for example, stricter control of organic labelling.</p><p>As for employer abuses, that's a tough call.  It's probably true that there's plenty of laws on the books preventing such things from happening just as it's true that such things continue to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate .
She did n't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so .
I think most companies have certain social or political beliefs , and it 's reasonable to expect they might want to ask their employees to help out , whether that 's contributing time or money to a charity , signing a petition , or even writing a letter to Congress .
It 's just as reasonable to expect that a certain number of employees would want to participate.The difference here is that we 're talking about AT&amp;T , not the employees of a small company with narrow or limited interests .
I 'd suggest that if the rules for a company that wields that much power ca n't be made different , then their actions should be more carefully scrutinised for abuses.What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.Perhaps , but it can be ideal when they complement each other .
If I was an avid amateur organic farmer and was an employee of Whole Foods , I 'd certainly be happy to assist the company in advocating , for example , stricter control of organic labelling.As for employer abuses , that 's a tough call .
It 's probably true that there 's plenty of laws on the books preventing such things from happening just as it 's true that such things continue to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my wife received a letter from her Employer asking her to lobby her congress/senate folks on behalf of the health care debate.
She didn't feel comfortable doing it at all and told her boss so.
I think most companies have certain social or political beliefs, and it's reasonable to expect they might want to ask their employees to help out, whether that's contributing time or money to a charity, signing a petition, or even writing a letter to Congress.
It's just as reasonable to expect that a certain number of employees would want to participate.The difference here is that we're talking about AT&amp;T, not the employees of a small company with narrow or limited interests.
I'd suggest that if the rules for a company that wields that much power can't be made different, then their actions should be more carefully scrutinised for abuses.What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.Perhaps, but it can be ideal when they complement each other.
If I was an avid amateur organic farmer and was an employee of Whole Foods, I'd certainly be happy to assist the company in advocating, for example, stricter control of organic labelling.As for employer abuses, that's a tough call.
It's probably true that there's plenty of laws on the books preventing such things from happening just as it's true that such things continue to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816577</id>
	<title>Slimy Company</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've witnessed some slimy handiwork at AT&amp;T with regard to H-1B abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've witnessed some slimy handiwork at AT&amp;T with regard to H-1B abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've witnessed some slimy handiwork at AT&amp;T with regard to H-1B abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816015</id>
	<title>Great comment from Len Grace AGAINST "neutrality"</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> <b>From the FCC comments, this was too good not to repost here - credit to Len Grace, apparently with Cable Digital News:</b> </i></p><p>The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net Neutrality Rules including, broadband speeds to be adopted for those companies using federal dollars to upgrade their networks. This comes at the same time the FCC is proposing to provide the underpinnings of a governmental mandate to; serve the underserved.</p><p>This is yet another dangerous road the FCC is attempting to navigate from a top-down regulatory standpoint, and could simply derail the original efforts to have success in the broadband investment philosophy it generated.</p><p>Here are the perilous implications:</p><p>Mandating ISP speeds on the front end of legislation could impede private investment from taking on the challenges of serving sparsely populated or lower demographic areas</p><p>Creating an open and share all approach for content access will again scare off potential investors who will be suspect of reaching respectable returns on their money</p><p>The burgeoning internet advertising market will be hampered, or even stopped, from investing in the very sector the FCC is attempting to help grow and prosper</p><p>These are the important issues related to recent discussions on Net Neutrality to be addressed, but need to be considered while proposing to regulate an industry on the verge of creating just the applications and services that consumers want with internet connections. My message to the FCC is; do not blow the very opportunity to let private investment create the infrastructure, content and applications which you have incented them to accomplish, by over regulating those companies into inaction.</p><p>It continues to be evident that the best incentive would be to take a hands-off approach to regulation while providing the capital incentive for the networks to build out their infrastructures. What scares Wall Street more than anything is the prospect of heavy regulation that will stifle investment opportunities. This has a negative effect on company stocks, shareholders, and the willingness of private investment to flourish, and in essence, get the job done.</p><p>The FCC should be promoting a healthy investment and competition environment rather than a heavy-handed regulatory approach for the future of Internet access. This would create the (win-win) situation the government agency is looking for, whether it realizes the implications, or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FCC comments , this was too good not to repost here - credit to Len Grace , apparently with Cable Digital News : The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net Neutrality Rules including , broadband speeds to be adopted for those companies using federal dollars to upgrade their networks .
This comes at the same time the FCC is proposing to provide the underpinnings of a governmental mandate to ; serve the underserved.This is yet another dangerous road the FCC is attempting to navigate from a top-down regulatory standpoint , and could simply derail the original efforts to have success in the broadband investment philosophy it generated.Here are the perilous implications : Mandating ISP speeds on the front end of legislation could impede private investment from taking on the challenges of serving sparsely populated or lower demographic areasCreating an open and share all approach for content access will again scare off potential investors who will be suspect of reaching respectable returns on their moneyThe burgeoning internet advertising market will be hampered , or even stopped , from investing in the very sector the FCC is attempting to help grow and prosperThese are the important issues related to recent discussions on Net Neutrality to be addressed , but need to be considered while proposing to regulate an industry on the verge of creating just the applications and services that consumers want with internet connections .
My message to the FCC is ; do not blow the very opportunity to let private investment create the infrastructure , content and applications which you have incented them to accomplish , by over regulating those companies into inaction.It continues to be evident that the best incentive would be to take a hands-off approach to regulation while providing the capital incentive for the networks to build out their infrastructures .
What scares Wall Street more than anything is the prospect of heavy regulation that will stifle investment opportunities .
This has a negative effect on company stocks , shareholders , and the willingness of private investment to flourish , and in essence , get the job done.The FCC should be promoting a healthy investment and competition environment rather than a heavy-handed regulatory approach for the future of Internet access .
This would create the ( win-win ) situation the government agency is looking for , whether it realizes the implications , or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> From the FCC comments, this was too good not to repost here - credit to Len Grace, apparently with Cable Digital News: The Federal Communications Commission recently led discussions on proposed Net Neutrality Rules including, broadband speeds to be adopted for those companies using federal dollars to upgrade their networks.
This comes at the same time the FCC is proposing to provide the underpinnings of a governmental mandate to; serve the underserved.This is yet another dangerous road the FCC is attempting to navigate from a top-down regulatory standpoint, and could simply derail the original efforts to have success in the broadband investment philosophy it generated.Here are the perilous implications:Mandating ISP speeds on the front end of legislation could impede private investment from taking on the challenges of serving sparsely populated or lower demographic areasCreating an open and share all approach for content access will again scare off potential investors who will be suspect of reaching respectable returns on their moneyThe burgeoning internet advertising market will be hampered, or even stopped, from investing in the very sector the FCC is attempting to help grow and prosperThese are the important issues related to recent discussions on Net Neutrality to be addressed, but need to be considered while proposing to regulate an industry on the verge of creating just the applications and services that consumers want with internet connections.
My message to the FCC is; do not blow the very opportunity to let private investment create the infrastructure, content and applications which you have incented them to accomplish, by over regulating those companies into inaction.It continues to be evident that the best incentive would be to take a hands-off approach to regulation while providing the capital incentive for the networks to build out their infrastructures.
What scares Wall Street more than anything is the prospect of heavy regulation that will stifle investment opportunities.
This has a negative effect on company stocks, shareholders, and the willingness of private investment to flourish, and in essence, get the job done.The FCC should be promoting a healthy investment and competition environment rather than a heavy-handed regulatory approach for the future of Internet access.
This would create the (win-win) situation the government agency is looking for, whether it realizes the implications, or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816165</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256040360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Employment does not mean you automatically subscribe to the Corporation's Political Views.</p><p>If you were a card-carrying member of the FSF, you'd bet you'd agree with most of their ideals on freedom of information.</p><p>Contrast this with being a Coke/Pepsi delivery truck driver; should you be required to "toe the line" and write your congressman for more high-fructose corn syrup or corn crop subsidies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Employment does not mean you automatically subscribe to the Corporation 's Political Views.If you were a card-carrying member of the FSF , you 'd bet you 'd agree with most of their ideals on freedom of information.Contrast this with being a Coke/Pepsi delivery truck driver ; should you be required to " toe the line " and write your congressman for more high-fructose corn syrup or corn crop subsidies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Employment does not mean you automatically subscribe to the Corporation's Political Views.If you were a card-carrying member of the FSF, you'd bet you'd agree with most of their ideals on freedom of information.Contrast this with being a Coke/Pepsi delivery truck driver; should you be required to "toe the line" and write your congressman for more high-fructose corn syrup or corn crop subsidies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815693</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>pegasustonans</author>
	<datestamp>1256037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a good deal of self-evident irony in an 'Open Internet' site run by the FCC and not prepared for lots of visitors.  I worry that the site is slowing down under a deluge of AT&amp;T employees attempting to access it and run their FUD amok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a good deal of self-evident irony in an 'Open Internet ' site run by the FCC and not prepared for lots of visitors .
I worry that the site is slowing down under a deluge of AT&amp;T employees attempting to access it and run their FUD amok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a good deal of self-evident irony in an 'Open Internet' site run by the FCC and not prepared for lots of visitors.
I worry that the site is slowing down under a deluge of AT&amp;T employees attempting to access it and run their FUD amok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</id>
	<title>Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>Michael G. Kaplan</author>
	<datestamp>1256034840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website.  You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.  </p><p>

<a href="http://openinternet.gov/" title="openinternet.gov" rel="nofollow">http://openinternet.gov/</a> [openinternet.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC 's net neutrality website .
You can do the same , you have until Thursday to post .
http : //openinternet.gov/ [ openinternet.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T urged its employees to post on the FCC's net neutrality website.
You can do the same, you have until Thursday to post.
http://openinternet.gov/ [openinternet.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816665</id>
	<title>Re:Always err on the side of reducing power</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1256043240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright, I'll save my mod points and bite.<p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.</p></div><p>Sort of like when Apple tied the iPhone to the ATT network. Oh man the shit storm that erupted from customer sent them packing...<br>
Sort of like when Charter started imposing bandwidth caps on customers who had their advertised "unlimited" internet access. Yup, turned that one right around.<br>
Sort of like when *any* cellular network charged for both incoming and outgoing SMS packets. Good thing that uproar ended that practice.<br>
Sort of like when ISPs started redirecting failed DNS website queries to their own ad-laden search pages. God I never thought that would stop!
<br> <br>
What you describe is how it *should* work, and believe me we would all love if it did. Unfortunately that's not how the real world always works. Fact of the matter is there just isn't enough competition in ISPs for customers to really vote with their wallets. If customers can't vote with their wallets, companies don't have consequences for their actions. ATT does something you don't like... are you going to go to another DSL provider? That still uses ATT pipes? Internet backbones are still a natural monopoly in their respective regions and I don't expect some new technology will come around to change that. As much as we hate giving the government more power here, I would rather see some decisions made by a group who is at least remotely answerable to me versus a company that is only answerable to its shareholders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , I 'll save my mod points and bite.Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.Sort of like when Apple tied the iPhone to the ATT network .
Oh man the shit storm that erupted from customer sent them packing.. . Sort of like when Charter started imposing bandwidth caps on customers who had their advertised " unlimited " internet access .
Yup , turned that one right around .
Sort of like when * any * cellular network charged for both incoming and outgoing SMS packets .
Good thing that uproar ended that practice .
Sort of like when ISPs started redirecting failed DNS website queries to their own ad-laden search pages .
God I never thought that would stop !
What you describe is how it * should * work , and believe me we would all love if it did .
Unfortunately that 's not how the real world always works .
Fact of the matter is there just is n't enough competition in ISPs for customers to really vote with their wallets .
If customers ca n't vote with their wallets , companies do n't have consequences for their actions .
ATT does something you do n't like... are you going to go to another DSL provider ?
That still uses ATT pipes ?
Internet backbones are still a natural monopoly in their respective regions and I do n't expect some new technology will come around to change that .
As much as we hate giving the government more power here , I would rather see some decisions made by a group who is at least remotely answerable to me versus a company that is only answerable to its shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, I'll save my mod points and bite.Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.Sort of like when Apple tied the iPhone to the ATT network.
Oh man the shit storm that erupted from customer sent them packing...
Sort of like when Charter started imposing bandwidth caps on customers who had their advertised "unlimited" internet access.
Yup, turned that one right around.
Sort of like when *any* cellular network charged for both incoming and outgoing SMS packets.
Good thing that uproar ended that practice.
Sort of like when ISPs started redirecting failed DNS website queries to their own ad-laden search pages.
God I never thought that would stop!
What you describe is how it *should* work, and believe me we would all love if it did.
Unfortunately that's not how the real world always works.
Fact of the matter is there just isn't enough competition in ISPs for customers to really vote with their wallets.
If customers can't vote with their wallets, companies don't have consequences for their actions.
ATT does something you don't like... are you going to go to another DSL provider?
That still uses ATT pipes?
Internet backbones are still a natural monopoly in their respective regions and I don't expect some new technology will come around to change that.
As much as we hate giving the government more power here, I would rather see some decisions made by a group who is at least remotely answerable to me versus a company that is only answerable to its shareholders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815301</id>
	<title>is what it should be</title>
	<author>Alrescha</author>
	<datestamp>1256035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the only sort of lobbying that should be allowed<br>(imnsho)</p><p>A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the only sort of lobbying that should be allowed ( imnsho ) A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the only sort of lobbying that should be allowed(imnsho)A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815961</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1256039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Unions are for the employees and don't have any self interests.</i> <br> <br>
Ha!  Unions are not in it for the employees.  They are in it for the unions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unions are for the employees and do n't have any self interests .
Ha ! Unions are not in it for the employees .
They are in it for the unions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unions are for the employees and don't have any self interests.
Ha!  Unions are not in it for the employees.
They are in it for the unions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237</id>
	<title>Coming from a high level exec - why not skip?</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Coming from one of the company's most senior executives, it's hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.</i></p><p>When I've worked for large companies, the further up the chain the less likely I'd be to care whatsoever what it said.  That makes this even less of a suggestion, and more like a wish, that anyone may or may not fulfill (or in fact even read as this sounds like a message I would have just skipped over).  It's not like a "high level exec" is going to come by the office next Monday and ask how the letter to the FCC is coming!</p><p>I don't see anything wrong with a "high level exec" or anyone else saying that if you care about the issue, contact your congressman.  Who are YOU to say that all employees agree with what he wants them to say?   Meanwhile he has pointed out to them just who to talk to, one way or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming from one of the company 's most senior executives , it 's hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.When I 've worked for large companies , the further up the chain the less likely I 'd be to care whatsoever what it said .
That makes this even less of a suggestion , and more like a wish , that anyone may or may not fulfill ( or in fact even read as this sounds like a message I would have just skipped over ) .
It 's not like a " high level exec " is going to come by the office next Monday and ask how the letter to the FCC is coming ! I do n't see anything wrong with a " high level exec " or anyone else saying that if you care about the issue , contact your congressman .
Who are YOU to say that all employees agree with what he wants them to say ?
Meanwhile he has pointed out to them just who to talk to , one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming from one of the company's most senior executives, it's hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.When I've worked for large companies, the further up the chain the less likely I'd be to care whatsoever what it said.
That makes this even less of a suggestion, and more like a wish, that anyone may or may not fulfill (or in fact even read as this sounds like a message I would have just skipped over).
It's not like a "high level exec" is going to come by the office next Monday and ask how the letter to the FCC is coming!I don't see anything wrong with a "high level exec" or anyone else saying that if you care about the issue, contact your congressman.
Who are YOU to say that all employees agree with what he wants them to say?
Meanwhile he has pointed out to them just who to talk to, one way or the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816145</id>
	<title>If you disagree say why</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would ask that anyone voting me down have the balls to say what exactly you disagree with, rather than silently striking from the shadows just because you don't understand what "net neutrality" really means.</p><p>Has any government oversight committee in the history of mankind ever remained "Neutral"?  If you don't like companies controlling the internet you should be fearful indeed of giving a group of ten or so easily bribed people huge sway over the whole industry.  THAT is your "neutrality".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would ask that anyone voting me down have the balls to say what exactly you disagree with , rather than silently striking from the shadows just because you do n't understand what " net neutrality " really means.Has any government oversight committee in the history of mankind ever remained " Neutral " ?
If you do n't like companies controlling the internet you should be fearful indeed of giving a group of ten or so easily bribed people huge sway over the whole industry .
THAT is your " neutrality " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would ask that anyone voting me down have the balls to say what exactly you disagree with, rather than silently striking from the shadows just because you don't understand what "net neutrality" really means.Has any government oversight committee in the history of mankind ever remained "Neutral"?
If you don't like companies controlling the internet you should be fearful indeed of giving a group of ten or so easily bribed people huge sway over the whole industry.
THAT is your "neutrality".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913</id>
	<title>Things look very, very bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm looking at the comments on the OpenInternet.gov site- I am not surprised at the responses, although they are as depressing as they can get. Many comments are along the lines of this one:<p><div class="quote"><p>The free and open part of it is the best thing going. Please do not screw it up with regulations like the net neutrality proposal.</p> </div><p>People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse. Hopefully some influential people on our side reads those comments and understands what these people really mean. Otherwise the overwhelming majority of responses are against net neutrality, which is not the kind of backing we want the big corps to have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking at the comments on the OpenInternet.gov site- I am not surprised at the responses , although they are as depressing as they can get .
Many comments are along the lines of this one : The free and open part of it is the best thing going .
Please do not screw it up with regulations like the net neutrality proposal .
People have no clue what net neutrality is , and just assume it 's government regulation that will make things worse .
Hopefully some influential people on our side reads those comments and understands what these people really mean .
Otherwise the overwhelming majority of responses are against net neutrality , which is not the kind of backing we want the big corps to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking at the comments on the OpenInternet.gov site- I am not surprised at the responses, although they are as depressing as they can get.
Many comments are along the lines of this one:The free and open part of it is the best thing going.
Please do not screw it up with regulations like the net neutrality proposal.
People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse.
Hopefully some influential people on our side reads those comments and understands what these people really mean.
Otherwise the overwhelming majority of responses are against net neutrality, which is not the kind of backing we want the big corps to have.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29828377</id>
	<title>Re:Is net neutrality a good thing?</title>
	<author>AaronMK</author>
	<datestamp>1256117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, you have to buy a pipe that can support the applications you run on your network.  On the flip side, your service provider should be able to reliably provide the upstream and downstream data rates of the pipe you purchase, even during peak hours.  That is not to say some prioritization might not be necessary by the ISP during pathological spikes, but if that is a regular occurrence, they need to upgrade their network so it can uphold their end of the bargain.

At that point it is up to you to configure your router to prioritize latency sensitive traffic.  Most come either pre-configured to do so, or make it easy to apply for common applications.

At least on most wired connections, bandwidth is not as scarce a commodity as the telecoms would like you to believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , you have to buy a pipe that can support the applications you run on your network .
On the flip side , your service provider should be able to reliably provide the upstream and downstream data rates of the pipe you purchase , even during peak hours .
That is not to say some prioritization might not be necessary by the ISP during pathological spikes , but if that is a regular occurrence , they need to upgrade their network so it can uphold their end of the bargain .
At that point it is up to you to configure your router to prioritize latency sensitive traffic .
Most come either pre-configured to do so , or make it easy to apply for common applications .
At least on most wired connections , bandwidth is not as scarce a commodity as the telecoms would like you to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, you have to buy a pipe that can support the applications you run on your network.
On the flip side, your service provider should be able to reliably provide the upstream and downstream data rates of the pipe you purchase, even during peak hours.
That is not to say some prioritization might not be necessary by the ISP during pathological spikes, but if that is a regular occurrence, they need to upgrade their network so it can uphold their end of the bargain.
At that point it is up to you to configure your router to prioritize latency sensitive traffic.
Most come either pre-configured to do so, or make it easy to apply for common applications.
At least on most wired connections, bandwidth is not as scarce a commodity as the telecoms would like you to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815787</id>
	<title>Everyone is a slave/whore. Humanity is dead</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1256038380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do what your corporations say, or get the whip... "nigger".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do what your corporations say , or get the whip... " nigger " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do what your corporations say, or get the whip... "nigger".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817213</id>
	<title>hell</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1256045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>back in 04 we were sent letters telling us that if Bush was not elected, our business would go bankrupt.</p><p>I work for an ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>back in 04 we were sent letters telling us that if Bush was not elected , our business would go bankrupt.I work for an ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in 04 we were sent letters telling us that if Bush was not elected, our business would go bankrupt.I work for an ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>HeyLaughingBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256034720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the big deal? I also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business. It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his <em>suggestion</em> or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal ?
I also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business .
It does n't matter where the urging comes from since it 's not like the CEO can tell that you 've followed his suggestion or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal?
I also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business.
It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816739</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not employed by the Sierra Club or FSF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not employed by the Sierra Club or FSF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not employed by the Sierra Club or FSF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815763</id>
	<title>Re:Let the FCC know your own opinion</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1256038260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it called "Open Internet"?

</p><p>If the FCC regulates the Internet's backbones, even in the name of "preserving a <i>free</i> and <i>open</i> Internet," they'll have to monitor the Internet. Somehow.

</p><p>When did nerds start salivating over the FCC acting as an Internet gatekeeper? Are they really that pissed off at AT&amp;T for not letting them use Skype on their iPhones? Or whatever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it called " Open Internet " ?
If the FCC regulates the Internet 's backbones , even in the name of " preserving a free and open Internet , " they 'll have to monitor the Internet .
Somehow . When did nerds start salivating over the FCC acting as an Internet gatekeeper ?
Are they really that pissed off at AT&amp;T for not letting them use Skype on their iPhones ?
Or whatever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it called "Open Internet"?
If the FCC regulates the Internet's backbones, even in the name of "preserving a free and open Internet," they'll have to monitor the Internet.
Somehow.

When did nerds start salivating over the FCC acting as an Internet gatekeeper?
Are they really that pissed off at AT&amp;T for not letting them use Skype on their iPhones?
Or whatever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817489</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon did NOT do this as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really AM a Verizon employee and they did no such thing.</p><p>More at&amp;t FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really AM a Verizon employee and they did no such thing.More at&amp;t FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really AM a Verizon employee and they did no such thing.More at&amp;t FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816111</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon did this as well</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1256040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just ignore it?  Of course the company is looking out for its own interests, is this somehow a surprise to you?  Were you so naive when you accepted the job that you thought that they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/wouldn't/?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just ignore it ?
Of course the company is looking out for its own interests , is this somehow a surprise to you ?
Were you so naive when you accepted the job that you thought that they /would n't/ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just ignore it?
Of course the company is looking out for its own interests, is this somehow a surprise to you?
Were you so naive when you accepted the job that you thought that they /wouldn't/?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820575</id>
	<title>I'm pretty sure that this is ILLEGAL</title>
	<author>ancient\_kings</author>
	<datestamp>1256117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T officers and directors should be arrested on criminal charges and it should all be broadcast on National TV (like Bernie Madoff) to make a very clear example of such illegal behavior will NOT BE TOLERATED.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T officers and directors should be arrested on criminal charges and it should all be broadcast on National TV ( like Bernie Madoff ) to make a very clear example of such illegal behavior will NOT BE TOLERATED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T officers and directors should be arrested on criminal charges and it should all be broadcast on National TV (like Bernie Madoff) to make a very clear example of such illegal behavior will NOT BE TOLERATED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815957</id>
	<title>Re:Coming from a high level exec - why not skip?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if "high level exec" can send such an email to 300k employees, then a low level grunt ought to be able to do the same, with a possibly dissenting point of view and talking points.  Do you think that would be allowed?  Of course not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if " high level exec " can send such an email to 300k employees , then a low level grunt ought to be able to do the same , with a possibly dissenting point of view and talking points .
Do you think that would be allowed ?
Of course not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if "high level exec" can send such an email to 300k employees, then a low level grunt ought to be able to do the same, with a possibly dissenting point of view and talking points.
Do you think that would be allowed?
Of course not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815801</id>
	<title>Re:Coming from a high level exec - why not skip?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Becasue when management starts applying pressure for you to be a team player people will write the email, and possible CC it to their boss.</p><p>really, management telling people to get involved inj one side of a political issue is bad form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Becasue when management starts applying pressure for you to be a team player people will write the email , and possible CC it to their boss.really , management telling people to get involved inj one side of a political issue is bad form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Becasue when management starts applying pressure for you to be a team player people will write the email, and possible CC it to their boss.really, management telling people to get involved inj one side of a political issue is bad form.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820589</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>LordAndrewSama</author>
	<datestamp>1256117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, good sir, are an artist!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , good sir , are an artist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, good sir, are an artist!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820165</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256155200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's how I know its not a requirement.  I work for one of the AT&amp;T companies as a pay/hour employee.  They have very strict policies about when I can and cannot work.  I am not allowed to do any work whatsoever off the clock.  I am only allowed to work when scheduled.  AT&amp;T has been sued and lost for having employees work off the clock.  If AT&amp;T is suggesting I e-mail the FCC with my personal e-mail address, it cannot be done on the clock.  I'm not allowed to access my e-mail during work, and it is blocked.  AT&amp;T would never ask me to do anything work related off the clock.   </p><p>I am an employee and my response to the suggestion was to ignore it.  No adverse effect here so far.   </p><p>I think AT&amp;T has a point.  If google is going to start setting up phone numbers and effect how much a phone call costs, then google needs to be on an equal playing field with respect to the other phone carriers.  Google may not be responsible for the physical lines, but they are acting as a doorway or gateway for certain kinds of traffic.  If they're going to argue for net neutrality, then they need to be on equal footing with the other gateways.  Cell phone carriers are playing a dual status: Provider of the line and controller of access to content.  Google wants to be a controller of the access to content with their google-voice technology.  </p><p>My personal  view  (This has no reflection upon AT&amp;T's view of things)  is that the wireless cell phone network will eventually phase out to be replaced with Data-only services.  Phone calls switch to operating as VOIP.  I don't see this happening in 10 years, but 50 or 100 down the road, I have a hard time believing that cell phones are going to be anything but PDAs with a mic+speakers+VOIP.   The future of wireless is not set in stone.  But I can almost guarantee that no matter who provides the data pipe to the customer, they are going to want to setup some sort of tiered pricing to recover variable usage costs.  </p><p>AT&amp;T is already evolving into becoming their own content provider and is trying to re-brand itself as a provider of entertainment and not just a common carrier.   </p><p>Posting ANON since I am an employee.    </p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how I know its not a requirement .
I work for one of the AT&amp;T companies as a pay/hour employee .
They have very strict policies about when I can and can not work .
I am not allowed to do any work whatsoever off the clock .
I am only allowed to work when scheduled .
AT&amp;T has been sued and lost for having employees work off the clock .
If AT&amp;T is suggesting I e-mail the FCC with my personal e-mail address , it can not be done on the clock .
I 'm not allowed to access my e-mail during work , and it is blocked .
AT&amp;T would never ask me to do anything work related off the clock .
I am an employee and my response to the suggestion was to ignore it .
No adverse effect here so far .
I think AT&amp;T has a point .
If google is going to start setting up phone numbers and effect how much a phone call costs , then google needs to be on an equal playing field with respect to the other phone carriers .
Google may not be responsible for the physical lines , but they are acting as a doorway or gateway for certain kinds of traffic .
If they 're going to argue for net neutrality , then they need to be on equal footing with the other gateways .
Cell phone carriers are playing a dual status : Provider of the line and controller of access to content .
Google wants to be a controller of the access to content with their google-voice technology .
My personal view ( This has no reflection upon AT&amp;T 's view of things ) is that the wireless cell phone network will eventually phase out to be replaced with Data-only services .
Phone calls switch to operating as VOIP .
I do n't see this happening in 10 years , but 50 or 100 down the road , I have a hard time believing that cell phones are going to be anything but PDAs with a mic + speakers + VOIP .
The future of wireless is not set in stone .
But I can almost guarantee that no matter who provides the data pipe to the customer , they are going to want to setup some sort of tiered pricing to recover variable usage costs .
AT&amp;T is already evolving into becoming their own content provider and is trying to re-brand itself as a provider of entertainment and not just a common carrier .
Posting ANON since I am an employee .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how I know its not a requirement.
I work for one of the AT&amp;T companies as a pay/hour employee.
They have very strict policies about when I can and cannot work.
I am not allowed to do any work whatsoever off the clock.
I am only allowed to work when scheduled.
AT&amp;T has been sued and lost for having employees work off the clock.
If AT&amp;T is suggesting I e-mail the FCC with my personal e-mail address, it cannot be done on the clock.
I'm not allowed to access my e-mail during work, and it is blocked.
AT&amp;T would never ask me to do anything work related off the clock.
I am an employee and my response to the suggestion was to ignore it.
No adverse effect here so far.
I think AT&amp;T has a point.
If google is going to start setting up phone numbers and effect how much a phone call costs, then google needs to be on an equal playing field with respect to the other phone carriers.
Google may not be responsible for the physical lines, but they are acting as a doorway or gateway for certain kinds of traffic.
If they're going to argue for net neutrality, then they need to be on equal footing with the other gateways.
Cell phone carriers are playing a dual status: Provider of the line and controller of access to content.
Google wants to be a controller of the access to content with their google-voice technology.
My personal  view  (This has no reflection upon AT&amp;T's view of things)  is that the wireless cell phone network will eventually phase out to be replaced with Data-only services.
Phone calls switch to operating as VOIP.
I don't see this happening in 10 years, but 50 or 100 down the road, I have a hard time believing that cell phones are going to be anything but PDAs with a mic+speakers+VOIP.
The future of wireless is not set in stone.
But I can almost guarantee that no matter who provides the data pipe to the customer, they are going to want to setup some sort of tiered pricing to recover variable usage costs.
AT&amp;T is already evolving into becoming their own content provider and is trying to re-brand itself as a provider of entertainment and not just a common carrier.
Posting ANON since I am an employee.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816373</id>
	<title>How is that possible?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1256041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work."<br><br>You spend 40 hours a week at work, and the money you make a work provides for all your material needs at home.  I don't see how the two could possibly be divorced.  I'm not sure why that would be a desirable situation in any case.  You shouldn't invest a lot of time in a company like AT&amp;T if you feel that their economic and political goals are in disagreement with what you think is right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work .
" You spend 40 hours a week at work , and the money you make a work provides for all your material needs at home .
I do n't see how the two could possibly be divorced .
I 'm not sure why that would be a desirable situation in any case .
You should n't invest a lot of time in a company like AT&amp;T if you feel that their economic and political goals are in disagreement with what you think is right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.
"You spend 40 hours a week at work, and the money you make a work provides for all your material needs at home.
I don't see how the two could possibly be divorced.
I'm not sure why that would be a desirable situation in any case.
You shouldn't invest a lot of time in a company like AT&amp;T if you feel that their economic and political goals are in disagreement with what you think is right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29825435</id>
	<title>People, get a clue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing: "Coming from one of the company&rsquo;s most senior executives, it&rsquo;s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking...

The founder of Free Press is Robert W. McChesney who is, yes, yet another Marxist. He is a former editor of the Monthly Review.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_W.\_McChesney" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_W.\_McChesney</a> [wikipedia.org]

People love to hate corporations. But they also expect good jobs. Not many people here are quitting their jobs for a chance to work at the local DMV.

Get a clue and write your member of Congress.

Face it. If you want Euro-style socialism, you need to vote Republican. If you want Pol Pot... keep voting Democratic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi 's letter to astroturfing : " Coming from one of the company    s most senior executives , it    s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking.. . The founder of Free Press is Robert W. McChesney who is , yes , yet another Marxist .
He is a former editor of the Monthly Review .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert \ _W. \ _McChesney [ wikipedia.org ] People love to hate corporations .
But they also expect good jobs .
Not many people here are quitting their jobs for a chance to work at the local DMV .
Get a clue and write your member of Congress .
Face it .
If you want Euro-style socialism , you need to vote Republican .
If you want Pol Pot... keep voting Democratic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing: "Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking...

The founder of Free Press is Robert W. McChesney who is, yes, yet another Marxist.
He is a former editor of the Monthly Review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_W.\_McChesney [wikipedia.org]

People love to hate corporations.
But they also expect good jobs.
Not many people here are quitting their jobs for a chance to work at the local DMV.
Get a clue and write your member of Congress.
Face it.
If you want Euro-style socialism, you need to vote Republican.
If you want Pol Pot... keep voting Democratic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816093</id>
	<title>Yes and no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Coming from one of the company&rsquo;s most senior executives, it&rsquo;s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion."</p></div><p>We get periodic emails along similar lines, couched as suggestions, in the large bank in which I am a cog.  Know what happens? The vast majority of our 10s of thousands of employees just ignore them.   They often get lost in the daily email noise.  I suspect that the people at AT&amp;T are no different.  And surprise! no repercussions, because they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/are/ just suggestions.
</p><p>
I don't like this in any way (it also irritates me when they do it at work), but to imply that people are somehow being coerced into actually doing as stated in the email it is its own kind of aggravating.  Try to give us drones some credit, eh?
</p><p>
Now pardon me, I've got to go -- I almost forgot to write out my monthly check to our PAC!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Coming from one of the company    s most senior executives , it    s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion .
" We get periodic emails along similar lines , couched as suggestions , in the large bank in which I am a cog .
Know what happens ?
The vast majority of our 10s of thousands of employees just ignore them .
They often get lost in the daily email noise .
I suspect that the people at AT&amp;T are no different .
And surprise !
no repercussions , because they /are/ just suggestions .
I do n't like this in any way ( it also irritates me when they do it at work ) , but to imply that people are somehow being coerced into actually doing as stated in the email it is its own kind of aggravating .
Try to give us drones some credit , eh ?
Now pardon me , I 've got to go -- I almost forgot to write out my monthly check to our PAC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&amp;T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion.
"We get periodic emails along similar lines, couched as suggestions, in the large bank in which I am a cog.
Know what happens?
The vast majority of our 10s of thousands of employees just ignore them.
They often get lost in the daily email noise.
I suspect that the people at AT&amp;T are no different.
And surprise!
no repercussions, because they /are/ just suggestions.
I don't like this in any way (it also irritates me when they do it at work), but to imply that people are somehow being coerced into actually doing as stated in the email it is its own kind of aggravating.
Try to give us drones some credit, eh?
Now pardon me, I've got to go -- I almost forgot to write out my monthly check to our PAC!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815235</id>
	<title>We're AT&amp;T!!!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like it, <a href="http://www.cs.tut.fi/~mikki/humor/ATT.html" title="cs.tut.fi">see figure 1!!!</a> [cs.tut.fi]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it , see figure 1 ! ! !
[ cs.tut.fi ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it, see figure 1!!!
[cs.tut.fi]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29822319</id>
	<title>Re:Things look very, very bad</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1256134320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse.</p></div><p>It's not like they have a stellar track record or anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have no clue what net neutrality is , and just assume it 's government regulation that will make things worse.It 's not like they have a stellar track record or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse.It's not like they have a stellar track record or anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818513</id>
	<title>Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ideally yes but some unions are becoming self serving monstrosities. And before you start arguing with me. I know because mine and those of coworkers in other trades I work with and separate unions have and see the same from their union.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally yes but some unions are becoming self serving monstrosities .
And before you start arguing with me .
I know because mine and those of coworkers in other trades I work with and separate unions have and see the same from their union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally yes but some unions are becoming self serving monstrosities.
And before you start arguing with me.
I know because mine and those of coworkers in other trades I work with and separate unions have and see the same from their union.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771</id>
	<title>Double Standard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256038260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this any different than, say, the Sierra Club or the FSF urging their members / followers to lobby their politicos on a particular point of view? It's OK for "us" but not for "them"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than , say , the Sierra Club or the FSF urging their members / followers to lobby their politicos on a particular point of view ?
It 's OK for " us " but not for " them " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than, say, the Sierra Club or the FSF urging their members / followers to lobby their politicos on a particular point of view?
It's OK for "us" but not for "them"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29823245</id>
	<title>Oxymoron</title>
	<author>Mp3Brick</author>
	<datestamp>1256139000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On-topic I can&rsquo;t say it is right for any company to tell others what side to take on political issues no matter what side it&rsquo;s is. I have a theory: If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America, one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be a very difficult task to achieve. Kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware (the software cannot function on the hardware). So, if one cannot change the hardware, one can chose to run an emulator or virtualization layer. In this case I believe it is capitalism, aka business. For example, government cannot infringe on your rights, to smoke a cigarette let&rsquo;s say. But a company can because your employment is mutual which &ldquo;volunteers&rdquo; you for anything the company wants. Therefore, a communist regime need not change this country&rsquo;s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses, they only need to control the corporations. Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else?? The sad irony here is that communism can use its nemesis &ldquo;capitalism&rdquo; against itself like a parasite uses its host.<br> <br>

I know *most* slashdot'ers are a mixture of young IT professional's and students alike, and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there's nothing wrong with that. The danger (and this is historically substantiated) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ideals. Granted, like capitalism communism has it's good and bad parts. The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at the same time (check and balance) while communism starts out with good intent like "Net Neutrality", but then evolves into something nefarious. <b>"Net Neutrality", oh sounds so fair doesn't it? I think communists like to use oxymoron&rsquo;s for naming things. Like "Free Press" founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist.</b> Sad that many of you have bought into the "business is evil" and "capitalism is evil", there has to be a villain etc... and are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists. The sad part is by the time you all "figure it out" it'll be too late. I used to think the Germans were soooo stupid for falling for the Nazi&rsquo;s and Hitler. But knowing history, it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement. You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the same stuff you all are fighting for today: social justice, equality, freedom from big business, better jobs, unifying the country (Nationalism), environmental concerns, community service, etc... Any of this sounds familiar? I'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are the overall "good", just be careful what/whom you vote for, and recognize the hidden agendas. Ironically with all the slams I see on here about "big business" being bad for the little guy, you same individuals see nothing wrong with "big government"?? A word to the wise; governments can change and this one does a lot!<br> <br>

I never would have thought in today&rsquo;s time aka 2009 we'd be dealing with a real Communist threat within our country. I would have never thought some of you right here right now are communists - some out spoken about it - others being stealthy and hiding under the "liberal" and "progressive" labels. I know there are modern-day communists reading this right now (of course - if this post didn't get "moderated"), and I just want to ask &ldquo;historically speaking... do you honestly think this is the best model of governing for the human race??&rdquo;<br> <br>

I&rsquo;m tired about all these &ldquo;pro&rdquo; democracy points of view. News flash &ndash; the USA is a &ldquo;Republic&rdquo;. Do you think our fore-fathers played rock-paper-scissors to come up with that? Or doing think they saw a fundamental flaw in a true Democracy frame of government? Capitalism is predicated on the individual, while communism is predicated on the collective. The most important diffe</htmltext>
<tokenext>On-topic I can    t say it is right for any company to tell others what side to take on political issues no matter what side it    s is .
I have a theory : If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America , one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights , this would be a very difficult task to achieve .
Kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware ( the software can not function on the hardware ) .
So , if one can not change the hardware , one can chose to run an emulator or virtualization layer .
In this case I believe it is capitalism , aka business .
For example , government can not infringe on your rights , to smoke a cigarette let    s say .
But a company can because your employment is mutual which    volunteers    you for anything the company wants .
Therefore , a communist regime need not change this country    s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses , they only need to control the corporations .
Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else ? ?
The sad irony here is that communism can use its nemesis    capitalism    against itself like a parasite uses its host .
I know * most * slashdot'ers are a mixture of young IT professional 's and students alike , and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there 's nothing wrong with that .
The danger ( and this is historically substantiated ) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ideals .
Granted , like capitalism communism has it 's good and bad parts .
The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at the same time ( check and balance ) while communism starts out with good intent like " Net Neutrality " , but then evolves into something nefarious .
" Net Neutrality " , oh sounds so fair does n't it ?
I think communists like to use oxymoron    s for naming things .
Like " Free Press " founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist .
Sad that many of you have bought into the " business is evil " and " capitalism is evil " , there has to be a villain etc... and are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists .
The sad part is by the time you all " figure it out " it 'll be too late .
I used to think the Germans were soooo stupid for falling for the Nazi    s and Hitler .
But knowing history , it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement .
You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the same stuff you all are fighting for today : social justice , equality , freedom from big business , better jobs , unifying the country ( Nationalism ) , environmental concerns , community service , etc... Any of this sounds familiar ?
I 'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are the overall " good " , just be careful what/whom you vote for , and recognize the hidden agendas .
Ironically with all the slams I see on here about " big business " being bad for the little guy , you same individuals see nothing wrong with " big government " ? ?
A word to the wise ; governments can change and this one does a lot !
I never would have thought in today    s time aka 2009 we 'd be dealing with a real Communist threat within our country .
I would have never thought some of you right here right now are communists - some out spoken about it - others being stealthy and hiding under the " liberal " and " progressive " labels .
I know there are modern-day communists reading this right now ( of course - if this post did n't get " moderated " ) , and I just want to ask    historically speaking... do you honestly think this is the best model of governing for the human race ?
?    I    m tired about all these    pro    democracy points of view .
News flash    the USA is a    Republic    .
Do you think our fore-fathers played rock-paper-scissors to come up with that ?
Or doing think they saw a fundamental flaw in a true Democracy frame of government ?
Capitalism is predicated on the individual , while communism is predicated on the collective .
The most important diffe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On-topic I can’t say it is right for any company to tell others what side to take on political issues no matter what side it’s is.
I have a theory: If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America, one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be a very difficult task to achieve.
Kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware (the software cannot function on the hardware).
So, if one cannot change the hardware, one can chose to run an emulator or virtualization layer.
In this case I believe it is capitalism, aka business.
For example, government cannot infringe on your rights, to smoke a cigarette let’s say.
But a company can because your employment is mutual which “volunteers” you for anything the company wants.
Therefore, a communist regime need not change this country’s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses, they only need to control the corporations.
Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else??
The sad irony here is that communism can use its nemesis “capitalism” against itself like a parasite uses its host.
I know *most* slashdot'ers are a mixture of young IT professional's and students alike, and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there's nothing wrong with that.
The danger (and this is historically substantiated) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ideals.
Granted, like capitalism communism has it's good and bad parts.
The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at the same time (check and balance) while communism starts out with good intent like "Net Neutrality", but then evolves into something nefarious.
"Net Neutrality", oh sounds so fair doesn't it?
I think communists like to use oxymoron’s for naming things.
Like "Free Press" founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist.
Sad that many of you have bought into the "business is evil" and "capitalism is evil", there has to be a villain etc... and are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists.
The sad part is by the time you all "figure it out" it'll be too late.
I used to think the Germans were soooo stupid for falling for the Nazi’s and Hitler.
But knowing history, it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement.
You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the same stuff you all are fighting for today: social justice, equality, freedom from big business, better jobs, unifying the country (Nationalism), environmental concerns, community service, etc... Any of this sounds familiar?
I'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are the overall "good", just be careful what/whom you vote for, and recognize the hidden agendas.
Ironically with all the slams I see on here about "big business" being bad for the little guy, you same individuals see nothing wrong with "big government"??
A word to the wise; governments can change and this one does a lot!
I never would have thought in today’s time aka 2009 we'd be dealing with a real Communist threat within our country.
I would have never thought some of you right here right now are communists - some out spoken about it - others being stealthy and hiding under the "liberal" and "progressive" labels.
I know there are modern-day communists reading this right now (of course - if this post didn't get "moderated"), and I just want to ask “historically speaking... do you honestly think this is the best model of governing for the human race?
?” 

I’m tired about all these “pro” democracy points of view.
News flash – the USA is a “Republic”.
Do you think our fore-fathers played rock-paper-scissors to come up with that?
Or doing think they saw a fundamental flaw in a true Democracy frame of government?
Capitalism is predicated on the individual, while communism is predicated on the collective.
The most important diffe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29824891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29828109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29828377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29822319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2043202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29828377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29822319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29824891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815651
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816243
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29819723
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817801
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816283
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29818491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29814995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29820165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29828109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29817781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816739
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816881
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2043202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29815643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2043202.29816373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
