<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_1428254</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T Sues Verizon Over "Map For That" Ads</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1257347220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MahlonS writes <i>"AP is reporting on a suit filed in Northern Georgia in which AT&amp;T claims that Verizon's 'There's a Map for That' <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US\_ATT\_VERIZON\_LAWSUIT?SITE=KVUE&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">ads are misleading</a> and amount to deceptive trade practices. Verizon had already agreed to modify their original ad to include a tag line that voice and data services are available outside 3G coverage areas."</i>  What's interesting is that on some level, this is actually a lawsuit over data visualization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MahlonS writes " AP is reporting on a suit filed in Northern Georgia in which AT&amp;T claims that Verizon 's 'There 's a Map for That ' ads are misleading and amount to deceptive trade practices .
Verizon had already agreed to modify their original ad to include a tag line that voice and data services are available outside 3G coverage areas .
" What 's interesting is that on some level , this is actually a lawsuit over data visualization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MahlonS writes "AP is reporting on a suit filed in Northern Georgia in which AT&amp;T claims that Verizon's 'There's a Map for That' ads are misleading and amount to deceptive trade practices.
Verizon had already agreed to modify their original ad to include a tag line that voice and data services are available outside 3G coverage areas.
"  What's interesting is that on some level, this is actually a lawsuit over data visualization.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29984028</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These maps are the result of a third party study. Verizon obtained these maps from a third party, unbiased company that went around the country testing out 3G coverage for different networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These maps are the result of a third party study .
Verizon obtained these maps from a third party , unbiased company that went around the country testing out 3G coverage for different networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These maps are the result of a third party study.
Verizon obtained these maps from a third party, unbiased company that went around the country testing out 3G coverage for different networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30003048</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Mike Buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1257442740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concur. Any company that would prefer to give it's money to lawyers instead of putting up more towers is not one I wish to continue supporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur .
Any company that would prefer to give it 's money to lawyers instead of putting up more towers is not one I wish to continue supporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur.
Any company that would prefer to give it's money to lawyers instead of putting up more towers is not one I wish to continue supporting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981586</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1257015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.</p></div><p>Yes, but that doesn't require 3G access to work.  They're effectively making the claim that your phone is useless without 3G coverage, which is not at all the case.  Not only is there no 3G coverage where I live (I only started getting reliable signal *at any speed* a couple of months ago), but I've been using the original iPhone since it came out.  2.5G isn't fast by any stretch of the imagination, but more often than not I'm slowed down far more by the performance of the device itself (JS-heavy pages are awful, whether on EDGE or 10+Mbit WiFi) than the actual bandwidth. Hell, I'm only able to get 1/4 of the download and ping performance of my home connection over WiFi on the iPhone (3Mbit, 109ms vs 12Mbit, 24ms).</p><p>IM certainly isn't a data-intense application, nor is most of Facebook or email. Mapping is probably the worst, though I almost never use YouTube which would probably win.  Honestly, bandwidth only seems noticeably poor when using the app store, since it's a straight-up download of a large file, rather than procedurally rendering HTML as it comes in or waiting for a few KB of JSON.</p><p>Latency is far and away the worst offender in terms of making things feel slow, but 3G does very little to address that.</p><p>Don't get me wrong - I want faster and more reliable coverage, and more bandwidth is almost always better.  But in my experience, most of the bandwidth-heavy applications of smartphones seem to get bogged down by the hardware before the bandwidth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't check e-mail , facebook , IM , etc , then I think it 's fair to claim you 're out of touch.Yes , but that does n't require 3G access to work .
They 're effectively making the claim that your phone is useless without 3G coverage , which is not at all the case .
Not only is there no 3G coverage where I live ( I only started getting reliable signal * at any speed * a couple of months ago ) , but I 've been using the original iPhone since it came out .
2.5G is n't fast by any stretch of the imagination , but more often than not I 'm slowed down far more by the performance of the device itself ( JS-heavy pages are awful , whether on EDGE or 10 + Mbit WiFi ) than the actual bandwidth .
Hell , I 'm only able to get 1/4 of the download and ping performance of my home connection over WiFi on the iPhone ( 3Mbit , 109ms vs 12Mbit , 24ms ) .IM certainly is n't a data-intense application , nor is most of Facebook or email .
Mapping is probably the worst , though I almost never use YouTube which would probably win .
Honestly , bandwidth only seems noticeably poor when using the app store , since it 's a straight-up download of a large file , rather than procedurally rendering HTML as it comes in or waiting for a few KB of JSON.Latency is far and away the worst offender in terms of making things feel slow , but 3G does very little to address that.Do n't get me wrong - I want faster and more reliable coverage , and more bandwidth is almost always better .
But in my experience , most of the bandwidth-heavy applications of smartphones seem to get bogged down by the hardware before the bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.Yes, but that doesn't require 3G access to work.
They're effectively making the claim that your phone is useless without 3G coverage, which is not at all the case.
Not only is there no 3G coverage where I live (I only started getting reliable signal *at any speed* a couple of months ago), but I've been using the original iPhone since it came out.
2.5G isn't fast by any stretch of the imagination, but more often than not I'm slowed down far more by the performance of the device itself (JS-heavy pages are awful, whether on EDGE or 10+Mbit WiFi) than the actual bandwidth.
Hell, I'm only able to get 1/4 of the download and ping performance of my home connection over WiFi on the iPhone (3Mbit, 109ms vs 12Mbit, 24ms).IM certainly isn't a data-intense application, nor is most of Facebook or email.
Mapping is probably the worst, though I almost never use YouTube which would probably win.
Honestly, bandwidth only seems noticeably poor when using the app store, since it's a straight-up download of a large file, rather than procedurally rendering HTML as it comes in or waiting for a few KB of JSON.Latency is far and away the worst offender in terms of making things feel slow, but 3G does very little to address that.Don't get me wrong - I want faster and more reliable coverage, and more bandwidth is almost always better.
But in my experience, most of the bandwidth-heavy applications of smartphones seem to get bogged down by the hardware before the bandwidth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460</id>
	<title>sprint</title>
	<author>Kleppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have sprint so I could care less. My blackberry works fine and I have no intent of using either company (Verizon or AT&amp;T) personally. AT&amp;T is too cocky with the iphone ONLY on their network (a la M$ - XBOX ONLY games) and Verizon just seems like cocks in thick black glasses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have sprint so I could care less .
My blackberry works fine and I have no intent of using either company ( Verizon or AT&amp;T ) personally .
AT&amp;T is too cocky with the iphone ONLY on their network ( a la M $ - XBOX ONLY games ) and Verizon just seems like cocks in thick black glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have sprint so I could care less.
My blackberry works fine and I have no intent of using either company (Verizon or AT&amp;T) personally.
AT&amp;T is too cocky with the iphone ONLY on their network (a la M$ - XBOX ONLY games) and Verizon just seems like cocks in thick black glasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978804</id>
	<title>Brilliant</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T should get its due reprisal for selling out the constitutional rights of its customers through wonton participation in the BushCo's illegal, warrantless wire tapping program.  If AT&amp;T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T should get its due reprisal for selling out the constitutional rights of its customers through wonton participation in the BushCo 's illegal , warrantless wire tapping program .
If AT&amp;T were the last cell phone company , I 'd get a ham radio license before using them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T should get its due reprisal for selling out the constitutional rights of its customers through wonton participation in the BushCo's illegal, warrantless wire tapping program.
If AT&amp;T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980786</id>
	<title>more maps too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Crappy, spotty or intermittent coverage?  Yeah, we got a map for that.</p><p>Crappy or indifferent customer service?  Yeah, we got a map for that.</p><p>Gross overcharging, lobotomized equipment, hidden fees and charges?  Yeah, we got a map for that"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Crappy , spotty or intermittent coverage ?
Yeah , we got a map for that.Crappy or indifferent customer service ?
Yeah , we got a map for that.Gross overcharging , lobotomized equipment , hidden fees and charges ?
Yeah , we got a map for that "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Crappy, spotty or intermittent coverage?
Yeah, we got a map for that.Crappy or indifferent customer service?
Yeah, we got a map for that.Gross overcharging, lobotomized equipment, hidden fees and charges?
Yeah, we got a map for that"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978868</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1257006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>False advertising pretty much happens ALL of the time.  No advertisement is 100\% truthful.  I guess you have to cross some invisible, arbitrary line before it becomes a civil tort issue.  I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.  This sounds like AT&amp;T is just upset because Verizon is pissing in its Cheerios.</htmltext>
<tokenext>False advertising pretty much happens ALL of the time .
No advertisement is 100 \ % truthful .
I guess you have to cross some invisible , arbitrary line before it becomes a civil tort issue .
I mean , come on , if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication , false advertising does happen .
This sounds like AT&amp;T is just upset because Verizon is pissing in its Cheerios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False advertising pretty much happens ALL of the time.
No advertisement is 100\% truthful.
I guess you have to cross some invisible, arbitrary line before it becomes a civil tort issue.
I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.
This sounds like AT&amp;T is just upset because Verizon is pissing in its Cheerios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980612</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, blackberry is probably #1... iPhone just has more visibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , blackberry is probably # 1... iPhone just has more visibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, blackberry is probably #1... iPhone just has more visibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</id>
	<title>I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>Paranatural</author>
	<datestamp>1257005520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage. As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about. Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.</p><p>A case of sour grapes by AT&amp;T.</p><p>Maybe if they'd use some of that iPhone money to expand their infrastructure instead of hiring lawyers and racking up executive bonuses...but nah, that's crazy talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage .
As long as the maps are accurate , I ca n't see what they are complaining about .
Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.A case of sour grapes by AT&amp;T.Maybe if they 'd use some of that iPhone money to expand their infrastructure instead of hiring lawyers and racking up executive bonuses...but nah , that 's crazy talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage.
As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about.
Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.A case of sour grapes by AT&amp;T.Maybe if they'd use some of that iPhone money to expand their infrastructure instead of hiring lawyers and racking up executive bonuses...but nah, that's crazy talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982844</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1257018660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that wood be we todd did to perm it sewing four homo fones</htmltext>
<tokenext>that wood be we todd did to perm it sewing four homo fones</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that wood be we todd did to perm it sewing four homo fones</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980458</id>
	<title>Grow Up, AT&amp;T...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, instead of improving their 3G service areas, they spent time and money on suing Verizon for pointing out their obviously inferior high speed network.  "Wah mommy, Verizon is making fun of me."  Half the time my coworkers with iPhones can't even make a voice call in my building, let alone get high speed data.  Thanks, but I think I'll stick with my lousy Verizon phone, at least I can make calls pretty much anywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , instead of improving their 3G service areas , they spent time and money on suing Verizon for pointing out their obviously inferior high speed network .
" Wah mommy , Verizon is making fun of me .
" Half the time my coworkers with iPhones ca n't even make a voice call in my building , let alone get high speed data .
Thanks , but I think I 'll stick with my lousy Verizon phone , at least I can make calls pretty much anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, instead of improving their 3G service areas, they spent time and money on suing Verizon for pointing out their obviously inferior high speed network.
"Wah mommy, Verizon is making fun of me.
"  Half the time my coworkers with iPhones can't even make a voice call in my building, let alone get high speed data.
Thanks, but I think I'll stick with my lousy Verizon phone, at least I can make calls pretty much anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983540</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257020580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running Windows 7 Ultimate perfectly fine on a Compaq SR1610NX from 2005. Stuck a Hauppage card in it to get HD OTA TV, run Media Center on it, record and play TV shows, watch them from my Xbox. Has some more memory, since I also played games on it, like World of Warcraft.<br><a href="http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00472088&amp;lc=en&amp;cc=us&amp;dlc=en&amp;product=1127350&amp;lang=en" title="hp.com" rel="nofollow">SR1610NX</a> [hp.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running Windows 7 Ultimate perfectly fine on a Compaq SR1610NX from 2005 .
Stuck a Hauppage card in it to get HD OTA TV , run Media Center on it , record and play TV shows , watch them from my Xbox .
Has some more memory , since I also played games on it , like World of Warcraft.SR1610NX [ hp.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running Windows 7 Ultimate perfectly fine on a Compaq SR1610NX from 2005.
Stuck a Hauppage card in it to get HD OTA TV, run Media Center on it, record and play TV shows, watch them from my Xbox.
Has some more memory, since I also played games on it, like World of Warcraft.SR1610NX [hp.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568</id>
	<title>OT: The Caring Continuum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When one usually states "I could care less", they usually mean "I could not care less". [e.g. "I could care less about linguistics."]</p><p>In order for one to "care less" about a subject, they must first care about it somewhat. Saying "I could care less about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... " does indeed imply, nay dictate, that there is some degree of care.</p><p><a href="http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care\_less.html" title="incompetech.com">http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care\_less.html</a> [incompetech.com]</p><p>Sorry, and thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When one usually states " I could care less " , they usually mean " I could not care less " .
[ e.g. " I could care less about linguistics .
" ] In order for one to " care less " about a subject , they must first care about it somewhat .
Saying " I could care less about ... " does indeed imply , nay dictate , that there is some degree of care.http : //incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care \ _less.html [ incompetech.com ] Sorry , and thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When one usually states "I could care less", they usually mean "I could not care less".
[e.g. "I could care less about linguistics.
"]In order for one to "care less" about a subject, they must first care about it somewhat.
Saying "I could care less about ... " does indeed imply, nay dictate, that there is some degree of care.http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care\_less.html [incompetech.com]Sorry, and thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29988210</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256993580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you want to talk to the electric company? In general, you only want to have electricity from them, for speaking lessons you'd be better off looking elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you want to talk to the electric company ?
In general , you only want to have electricity from them , for speaking lessons you 'd be better off looking elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you want to talk to the electric company?
In general, you only want to have electricity from them, for speaking lessons you'd be better off looking elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980420</id>
	<title>Re:... for that is the problem</title>
	<author>mattgoldey</author>
	<datestamp>1257011580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, as soon as I heard one of these ads for the first time, I had a feeling that there would be a lawsuit forthcoming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , as soon as I heard one of these ads for the first time , I had a feeling that there would be a lawsuit forthcoming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, as soon as I heard one of these ads for the first time, I had a feeling that there would be a lawsuit forthcoming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978820</id>
	<title>Marketing/advertising of a shady nature</title>
	<author>Drasham</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the ads with the change may be considered factually accurate, that doesn't change the fact that there are a great number of people who don't read the fine print on TV ads, much less anything else and will form opinions based on the convient "quick glance" interretation of the maps.

This is an interesting example of marketing/advertising of a shady nature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the ads with the change may be considered factually accurate , that does n't change the fact that there are a great number of people who do n't read the fine print on TV ads , much less anything else and will form opinions based on the convient " quick glance " interretation of the maps .
This is an interesting example of marketing/advertising of a shady nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the ads with the change may be considered factually accurate, that doesn't change the fact that there are a great number of people who don't read the fine print on TV ads, much less anything else and will form opinions based on the convient "quick glance" interretation of the maps.
This is an interesting example of marketing/advertising of a shady nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Churla</author>
	<datestamp>1257006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to disagree with you on this.  The ads do clearly state that it's 3G coverage.  And the difference between 2G and 3G for heavy data use Smartphone owners is a very significant one.   This ad is less deceptive than the AT&amp;T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.</p><p>If you want to argue that it gives people the impression that the phones don't have any coverage even though they state it's 3G coverage areas the maps are talking about then you should also talk to Apple about the "If I'm going to move things, why not move to a Mac?" ads which neglect to mention that the difference between moving Xp to Win 7 as opposed to XP to Mac is the fact that you also have to buy a completely new computer on top of a new OS (making it just a tad more expensive...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree with you on this .
The ads do clearly state that it 's 3G coverage .
And the difference between 2G and 3G for heavy data use Smartphone owners is a very significant one .
This ad is less deceptive than the AT&amp;T one claiming the " fastest 3G network " when it is only faster because it 's smaller and does n't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.If you want to argue that it gives people the impression that the phones do n't have any coverage even though they state it 's 3G coverage areas the maps are talking about then you should also talk to Apple about the " If I 'm going to move things , why not move to a Mac ?
" ads which neglect to mention that the difference between moving Xp to Win 7 as opposed to XP to Mac is the fact that you also have to buy a completely new computer on top of a new OS ( making it just a tad more expensive... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree with you on this.
The ads do clearly state that it's 3G coverage.
And the difference between 2G and 3G for heavy data use Smartphone owners is a very significant one.
This ad is less deceptive than the AT&amp;T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.If you want to argue that it gives people the impression that the phones don't have any coverage even though they state it's 3G coverage areas the maps are talking about then you should also talk to Apple about the "If I'm going to move things, why not move to a Mac?
" ads which neglect to mention that the difference between moving Xp to Win 7 as opposed to XP to Mac is the fact that you also have to buy a completely new computer on top of a new OS (making it just a tad more expensive...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978544</id>
	<title>File a lawsuit, or...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expand your effing infrastructure! Why do data providers insist on throwing money at advertising and corporate lawyers rather than just making their product better and have it (i.e. their network) speak for itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expand your effing infrastructure !
Why do data providers insist on throwing money at advertising and corporate lawyers rather than just making their product better and have it ( i.e .
their network ) speak for itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expand your effing infrastructure!
Why do data providers insist on throwing money at advertising and corporate lawyers rather than just making their product better and have it (i.e.
their network) speak for itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979552</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1257009060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but nah, that's crazy talk.</p></div><p>What does a <a href="http://www.lardlad.com/assets/quotes/season11/BABF13.shtml" title="lardlad.com">Native American who sells firecrackers</a> [lardlad.com] have to do with this?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but nah , that 's crazy talk.What does a Native American who sells firecrackers [ lardlad.com ] have to do with this ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but nah, that's crazy talk.What does a Native American who sells firecrackers [lardlad.com] have to do with this?
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983694</id>
	<title>Re:looks like AT&amp;T's strategy turned against t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.</p></div><p>Hypocritical.</p><p>Not ironic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.Hypocritical.Not ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.Hypocritical.Not ironic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983342</id>
	<title>Admit it AT&amp;T, it was a great ad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257020040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a former Verizon customer and current AT&amp;T customer, I found the "There's a Map for that" commercial absolutely hilarious.  Whoever in marketing thought of that deserves a gold medal and a huge bonus.</p><p>AT&amp;T needs to grow up and learn to take a joke.  Props to Verizon for an epic pun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former Verizon customer and current AT&amp;T customer , I found the " There 's a Map for that " commercial absolutely hilarious .
Whoever in marketing thought of that deserves a gold medal and a huge bonus.AT&amp;T needs to grow up and learn to take a joke .
Props to Verizon for an epic pun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former Verizon customer and current AT&amp;T customer, I found the "There's a Map for that" commercial absolutely hilarious.
Whoever in marketing thought of that deserves a gold medal and a huge bonus.AT&amp;T needs to grow up and learn to take a joke.
Props to Verizon for an epic pun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>PalmKiller</author>
	<datestamp>1257007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In at least 60\% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A.  Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In at least 60 \ % of the cases ( and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage ) , you will either A. Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential , or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In at least 60\% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A.  Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979378</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T's EDGE network (2.5G). For the AT&amp;T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s) coverage. So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed.  W-CDMA won't ever be deployed to 100\% of AT&amp;T's network, certainly not before they roll out LTE. What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100\% of AT&amp;T's licensed coverage area. Also, the slowest of AT&amp;T's 3G service is faster than Verizon's EVDO service.</p></div><p>WRONG. 100\% of Verizon's towers are 3g/EVDO eanbled, therefore the entire voice coverage map is the same as the entire data coverage map. AT&amp;T does not have 100\% 3G coverage on every tower, so they have separate maps for voice/edge and 3g. So comparing Verizon's map to AT&amp;T's edge is wrong since Verizon has 100\% EVDO/3G coverage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA ( 1x ) , which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T 's EDGE network ( 2.5G ) .
For the AT&amp;T map they 're using W-CDMA ( HSPA + 14.4mb/s ) coverage .
So they 're comparing their 2G ( or 2.5G ) service to ATT 3.5G service area , in terms of speed .
W-CDMA wo n't ever be deployed to 100 \ % of AT&amp;T 's network , certainly not before they roll out LTE .
What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T 's EDGE coverage map , which I believe is 100 \ % of AT&amp;T 's licensed coverage area .
Also , the slowest of AT&amp;T 's 3G service is faster than Verizon 's EVDO service.WRONG .
100 \ % of Verizon 's towers are 3g/EVDO eanbled , therefore the entire voice coverage map is the same as the entire data coverage map .
AT&amp;T does not have 100 \ % 3G coverage on every tower , so they have separate maps for voice/edge and 3g .
So comparing Verizon 's map to AT&amp;T 's edge is wrong since Verizon has 100 \ % EVDO/3G coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T's EDGE network (2.5G).
For the AT&amp;T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s) coverage.
So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed.
W-CDMA won't ever be deployed to 100\% of AT&amp;T's network, certainly not before they roll out LTE.
What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100\% of AT&amp;T's licensed coverage area.
Also, the slowest of AT&amp;T's 3G service is faster than Verizon's EVDO service.WRONG.
100\% of Verizon's towers are 3g/EVDO eanbled, therefore the entire voice coverage map is the same as the entire data coverage map.
AT&amp;T does not have 100\% 3G coverage on every tower, so they have separate maps for voice/edge and 3g.
So comparing Verizon's map to AT&amp;T's edge is wrong since Verizon has 100\% EVDO/3G coverage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29998704</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>JourneymanMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1257454620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that Verizon's Red Map is thier 2.5G (CDMA) network, not their 3G (EVDO) network.<br>The Blue Map is AT&amp;T's actual 3G (W-CDMA) map.</p></div><p>Um.... how not try can a single post be?</p><p>1. You call their older data CDMA... It's actually 1xRTT. Sure, it's transmitted over CDMA, but then again, so is their voice<br>2. And the EVDO data which is their 3G network (hey, you got that part right!!) is also over CDMA<br>3. The red map is Verizon's 3G coverage. It just happens that most of Verizon's network is 3G... which is kinda the <i>WHOLE POINT OF THE ADS</i>.<br>4. The blue map is, in fact, AT&amp;T's 3G coverage. I initially thought the term used here, W-CDMA, was incorrect and the correct term was UTMS. Turns out their the same thing, so I'll take my lump on this part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Verizon 's Red Map is thier 2.5G ( CDMA ) network , not their 3G ( EVDO ) network.The Blue Map is AT&amp;T 's actual 3G ( W-CDMA ) map.Um.... how not try can a single post be ? 1 .
You call their older data CDMA... It 's actually 1xRTT .
Sure , it 's transmitted over CDMA , but then again , so is their voice2 .
And the EVDO data which is their 3G network ( hey , you got that part right ! !
) is also over CDMA3 .
The red map is Verizon 's 3G coverage .
It just happens that most of Verizon 's network is 3G... which is kinda the WHOLE POINT OF THE ADS.4 .
The blue map is , in fact , AT&amp;T 's 3G coverage .
I initially thought the term used here , W-CDMA , was incorrect and the correct term was UTMS .
Turns out their the same thing , so I 'll take my lump on this part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Verizon's Red Map is thier 2.5G (CDMA) network, not their 3G (EVDO) network.The Blue Map is AT&amp;T's actual 3G (W-CDMA) map.Um.... how not try can a single post be?1.
You call their older data CDMA... It's actually 1xRTT.
Sure, it's transmitted over CDMA, but then again, so is their voice2.
And the EVDO data which is their 3G network (hey, you got that part right!!
) is also over CDMA3.
The red map is Verizon's 3G coverage.
It just happens that most of Verizon's network is 3G... which is kinda the WHOLE POINT OF THE ADS.4.
The blue map is, in fact, AT&amp;T's 3G coverage.
I initially thought the term used here, W-CDMA, was incorrect and the correct term was UTMS.
Turns out their the same thing, so I'll take my lump on this part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</id>
	<title>They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>Wireless Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1257007380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T's EDGE network (2.5G). For the AT&amp;T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s) coverage. So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed.  W-CDMA won't ever be deployed to 100\% of AT&amp;T's network, certainly not before they roll out LTE. What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100\% of AT&amp;T's licensed coverage area. Also, the slowest of AT&amp;T's 3G service is faster than Verizon's EVDO service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA ( 1x ) , which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T 's EDGE network ( 2.5G ) .
For the AT&amp;T map they 're using W-CDMA ( HSPA + 14.4mb/s ) coverage .
So they 're comparing their 2G ( or 2.5G ) service to ATT 3.5G service area , in terms of speed .
W-CDMA wo n't ever be deployed to 100 \ % of AT&amp;T 's network , certainly not before they roll out LTE .
What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T 's EDGE coverage map , which I believe is 100 \ % of AT&amp;T 's licensed coverage area .
Also , the slowest of AT&amp;T 's 3G service is faster than Verizon 's EVDO service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T's EDGE network (2.5G).
For the AT&amp;T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s) coverage.
So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed.
W-CDMA won't ever be deployed to 100\% of AT&amp;T's network, certainly not before they roll out LTE.
What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100\% of AT&amp;T's licensed coverage area.
Also, the slowest of AT&amp;T's 3G service is faster than Verizon's EVDO service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979120</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realizes it's losing the @ home and wireless battle. Verizon is cruising along and is really moving past AT&amp;T on many fronts now. It's a no brainer - ask any business IT which is better and most that I know in the Midwest pick Verizon hands-down for coverage and loss of signal. AT&amp;T on the other hand is in too much stuff again (remember they were a monopoly not so long ago) with their FiBo and UVerse packages, they've now stretched themselves thin. I still get about 3 pieces of AT&amp;T mail a week at home asking me to switch from Comcast and Verizon. Now they're complaining about this??? what a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realizes it 's losing the @ home and wireless battle .
Verizon is cruising along and is really moving past AT&amp;T on many fronts now .
It 's a no brainer - ask any business IT which is better and most that I know in the Midwest pick Verizon hands-down for coverage and loss of signal .
AT&amp;T on the other hand is in too much stuff again ( remember they were a monopoly not so long ago ) with their FiBo and UVerse packages , they 've now stretched themselves thin .
I still get about 3 pieces of AT&amp;T mail a week at home asking me to switch from Comcast and Verizon .
Now they 're complaining about this ? ? ?
what a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realizes it's losing the @ home and wireless battle.
Verizon is cruising along and is really moving past AT&amp;T on many fronts now.
It's a no brainer - ask any business IT which is better and most that I know in the Midwest pick Verizon hands-down for coverage and loss of signal.
AT&amp;T on the other hand is in too much stuff again (remember they were a monopoly not so long ago) with their FiBo and UVerse packages, they've now stretched themselves thin.
I still get about 3 pieces of AT&amp;T mail a week at home asking me to switch from Comcast and Verizon.
Now they're complaining about this???
what a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29989902</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the same thing, but according to this link:<br>http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf</p><p>The maps are comparing EV-DO on Verizon to HSPA coverage on AT&amp;T.  I wouldn't have believed it without this map stating it, but I guess you learn something every day.</p><p>Anyways, there are plenty of other reasons why coverage doesn't always equate to faster speeds, but at surface value, the updated ad is not too far off the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same thing , but according to this link : http : //vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdfThe maps are comparing EV-DO on Verizon to HSPA coverage on AT&amp;T .
I would n't have believed it without this map stating it , but I guess you learn something every day.Anyways , there are plenty of other reasons why coverage does n't always equate to faster speeds , but at surface value , the updated ad is not too far off the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same thing, but according to this link:http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdfThe maps are comparing EV-DO on Verizon to HSPA coverage on AT&amp;T.
I wouldn't have believed it without this map stating it, but I guess you learn something every day.Anyways, there are plenty of other reasons why coverage doesn't always equate to faster speeds, but at surface value, the updated ad is not too far off the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29993556</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1257429420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, AT&amp;T could sue over copyright violations since Verizon is using the AT&amp;T map in their advertising.   Fair use is one thing, but re-distributing via commercial can't be considered fair use.   Then again, once AT&amp;T starts to deploy 4/5G, 3G will be pushed out into areas that currently do not have it, and all this concern over 3G will go away.</p><p>The real down-side to the position AT&amp;T is in with the iPhone is that the iPhone is more about web browsing and connected services than it is about being a good phone, so being able to talk takes a back seat to data.   On the flip side, a true GPS with included maps on the device, rather than using a Google Maps application would push back against that very well, since "you don't need to pay for a data service to use the GPS" would be a way to go.    Since you can't swap the batteries out yourself on the iPhone, you are also in the position where you can't even use the iPhone as a stand-alone GPS when you don't have access to some sort of charger, while with other devices, you can have multiple charged batteries and swap them out as needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , AT&amp;T could sue over copyright violations since Verizon is using the AT&amp;T map in their advertising .
Fair use is one thing , but re-distributing via commercial ca n't be considered fair use .
Then again , once AT&amp;T starts to deploy 4/5G , 3G will be pushed out into areas that currently do not have it , and all this concern over 3G will go away.The real down-side to the position AT&amp;T is in with the iPhone is that the iPhone is more about web browsing and connected services than it is about being a good phone , so being able to talk takes a back seat to data .
On the flip side , a true GPS with included maps on the device , rather than using a Google Maps application would push back against that very well , since " you do n't need to pay for a data service to use the GPS " would be a way to go .
Since you ca n't swap the batteries out yourself on the iPhone , you are also in the position where you ca n't even use the iPhone as a stand-alone GPS when you do n't have access to some sort of charger , while with other devices , you can have multiple charged batteries and swap them out as needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, AT&amp;T could sue over copyright violations since Verizon is using the AT&amp;T map in their advertising.
Fair use is one thing, but re-distributing via commercial can't be considered fair use.
Then again, once AT&amp;T starts to deploy 4/5G, 3G will be pushed out into areas that currently do not have it, and all this concern over 3G will go away.The real down-side to the position AT&amp;T is in with the iPhone is that the iPhone is more about web browsing and connected services than it is about being a good phone, so being able to talk takes a back seat to data.
On the flip side, a true GPS with included maps on the device, rather than using a Google Maps application would push back against that very well, since "you don't need to pay for a data service to use the GPS" would be a way to go.
Since you can't swap the batteries out yourself on the iPhone, you are also in the position where you can't even use the iPhone as a stand-alone GPS when you don't have access to some sort of charger, while with other devices, you can have multiple charged batteries and swap them out as needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982766</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I need to buy new hardware, then in that case it doesn't matter. If I bought a new computer to run XP back when it was released because my old system was too old, then I could have easily bought a mac instead. That's true of every OS upgrade and not just this one. The Apple ad is going after people needing to offload their data to upgrade to Win7 on the same system, which as the previous poster pointed out is a lot different than needing to buy new hardware. Plus there are a multitude of ways that make saving and restoring data a whole lot easier than switching from Win to Mac not including issues like needing to buy some software packages again for the Mac when you switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I need to buy new hardware , then in that case it does n't matter .
If I bought a new computer to run XP back when it was released because my old system was too old , then I could have easily bought a mac instead .
That 's true of every OS upgrade and not just this one .
The Apple ad is going after people needing to offload their data to upgrade to Win7 on the same system , which as the previous poster pointed out is a lot different than needing to buy new hardware .
Plus there are a multitude of ways that make saving and restoring data a whole lot easier than switching from Win to Mac not including issues like needing to buy some software packages again for the Mac when you switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I need to buy new hardware, then in that case it doesn't matter.
If I bought a new computer to run XP back when it was released because my old system was too old, then I could have easily bought a mac instead.
That's true of every OS upgrade and not just this one.
The Apple ad is going after people needing to offload their data to upgrade to Win7 on the same system, which as the previous poster pointed out is a lot different than needing to buy new hardware.
Plus there are a multitude of ways that make saving and restoring data a whole lot easier than switching from Win to Mac not including issues like needing to buy some software packages again for the Mac when you switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980488</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well AT&amp;T would probably be right to argue that their average customers don't really understand what "3G" means and might be confused by the maps.  Of course, such an argument would be undercut by the fact that AT&amp;T refers to "3G" in their own ads without explaining it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well AT&amp;T would probably be right to argue that their average customers do n't really understand what " 3G " means and might be confused by the maps .
Of course , such an argument would be undercut by the fact that AT&amp;T refers to " 3G " in their own ads without explaining it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well AT&amp;T would probably be right to argue that their average customers don't really understand what "3G" means and might be confused by the maps.
Of course, such an argument would be undercut by the fact that AT&amp;T refers to "3G" in their own ads without explaining it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978678</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Paul Pierce</author>
	<datestamp>1257006360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Verizon is in the wrong by showing the competitors poor 3G coverage?  It's called competition.  <br> <br>I don't know anyone that watched the commercial and thought they were talking about normal coverage.  This is crap, maybe Microsoft should sue Mac for saying their computers are better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon is in the wrong by showing the competitors poor 3G coverage ?
It 's called competition .
I do n't know anyone that watched the commercial and thought they were talking about normal coverage .
This is crap , maybe Microsoft should sue Mac for saying their computers are better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon is in the wrong by showing the competitors poor 3G coverage?
It's called competition.
I don't know anyone that watched the commercial and thought they were talking about normal coverage.
This is crap, maybe Microsoft should sue Mac for saying their computers are better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978566</id>
	<title>eh, Iphone is lame anyways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the 'theres an app for that' commercials to be annoying...not one of the apps is even slightly useful (unless you're so dumb you can't figure out where you are or where to go for dinner)</p><p>I've followed Mac for years now and IMO they have become nothing more than an advertising jueggernaut reliant on how people 'feel' about their products.</p><p>If the map is accurate for what there 3G coverage is, then I see no problem.  And fact is, they cover all the major city centers and that's where all the hipster Iphone tottin kids are anyhow..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the 'theres an app for that ' commercials to be annoying...not one of the apps is even slightly useful ( unless you 're so dumb you ca n't figure out where you are or where to go for dinner ) I 've followed Mac for years now and IMO they have become nothing more than an advertising jueggernaut reliant on how people 'feel ' about their products.If the map is accurate for what there 3G coverage is , then I see no problem .
And fact is , they cover all the major city centers and that 's where all the hipster Iphone tottin kids are anyhow. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the 'theres an app for that' commercials to be annoying...not one of the apps is even slightly useful (unless you're so dumb you can't figure out where you are or where to go for dinner)I've followed Mac for years now and IMO they have become nothing more than an advertising jueggernaut reliant on how people 'feel' about their products.If the map is accurate for what there 3G coverage is, then I see no problem.
And fact is, they cover all the major city centers and that's where all the hipster Iphone tottin kids are anyhow..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983106</id>
	<title>Can</title>
	<author>Blue6</author>
	<datestamp>1257019440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you hear me now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>you hear me now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you hear me now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986032</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1256985000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In at least 60\% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A.  Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.</p></div><p>50\% of statistics worldwide are made up entirely,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. accounts for 10\% of statistics worldwide and 9.99999\% of those that are made up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In at least 60 \ % of the cases ( and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage ) , you will either A. Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential , or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.50 \ % of statistics worldwide are made up entirely , / .
accounts for 10 \ % of statistics worldwide and 9.99999 \ % of those that are made up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In at least 60\% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A.  Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.50\% of statistics worldwide are made up entirely, /.
accounts for 10\% of statistics worldwide and 9.99999\% of those that are made up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981258</id>
	<title>Re:sprint</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1257014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason your blackberry works so well is that it automatically roams to Verizon towers when Sprint isn't reachable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason your blackberry works so well is that it automatically roams to Verizon towers when Sprint is n't reachable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason your blackberry works so well is that it automatically roams to Verizon towers when Sprint isn't reachable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978996</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>earnest murderer</author>
	<datestamp>1257007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, and that isn't AT&amp;T's issue either.</p><p>The issue at had is purely the positioning of the two coverage maps together makes AT&amp;T look like chumps. Which they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , and that is n't AT&amp;T 's issue either.The issue at had is purely the positioning of the two coverage maps together makes AT&amp;T look like chumps .
Which they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, and that isn't AT&amp;T's issue either.The issue at had is purely the positioning of the two coverage maps together makes AT&amp;T look like chumps.
Which they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981416</id>
	<title>What a Country!</title>
	<author>shambalagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257014700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a country where advertisements are being taken to task for being misleading while the news has got the legal power to report <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/30/201231/262" title="dailykos.com">outright lies</a> [dailykos.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a country where advertisements are being taken to task for being misleading while the news has got the legal power to report outright lies [ dailykos.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a country where advertisements are being taken to task for being misleading while the news has got the legal power to report outright lies [dailykos.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980808</id>
	<title>Re:... for that is the problem</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1257012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that that is Apple's trademark. Nothing to do with ATT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that that is Apple 's trademark .
Nothing to do with ATT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that that is Apple's trademark.
Nothing to do with ATT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983378</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257020160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon's depiction of AT&amp;T's 3G coverage is accurate, if you go by the information available on AT&amp;T's website.</p><p>(I posted this <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430992&amp;cid=29983290" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org] a few minutes ago.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon 's depiction of AT&amp;T 's 3G coverage is accurate , if you go by the information available on AT&amp;T 's website .
( I posted this here [ slashdot.org ] a few minutes ago .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon's depiction of AT&amp;T's 3G coverage is accurate, if you go by the information available on AT&amp;T's website.
(I posted this here [slashdot.org] a few minutes ago.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978622</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>earnest murderer</author>
	<datestamp>1257006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the maps have a giant "3G" label, and they're both quite accurate and easy to compare...</p><p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5024163/att-3g-coverage-maps-updated-now-with-more-3g" title="gizmodo.com">http://gizmodo.com/5024163/att-3g-coverage-maps-updated-now-with-more-3g</a> [gizmodo.com]</p><p>You'll have to pull up a 3G map for a city then zoom out to the national level on their own site.. (http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&amp;3g=t).</p><p>AT&amp;T really doesn't have anything on Verizon's 3g network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the maps have a giant " 3G " label , and they 're both quite accurate and easy to compare...http : //gizmodo.com/5024163/att-3g-coverage-maps-updated-now-with-more-3g [ gizmodo.com ] You 'll have to pull up a 3G map for a city then zoom out to the national level on their own site.. ( http : //www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/ # ? type = voice&amp;3g = t ) .AT&amp;T really does n't have anything on Verizon 's 3g network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the maps have a giant "3G" label, and they're both quite accurate and easy to compare...http://gizmodo.com/5024163/att-3g-coverage-maps-updated-now-with-more-3g [gizmodo.com]You'll have to pull up a 3G map for a city then zoom out to the national level on their own site.. (http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&amp;3g=t).AT&amp;T really doesn't have anything on Verizon's 3g network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981234</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257014220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T's EDGE network (2.5G)</p><p>let me tell you about the last time I used 14.4mb/s service on my phone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA ( 1x ) , which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T 's EDGE network ( 2.5G ) let me tell you about the last time I used 14.4mb/s service on my phone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&amp;T's EDGE network (2.5G)let me tell you about the last time I used 14.4mb/s service on my phone...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986578</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T should post a global map...</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1256986860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon sells dual GSM/CDMA "world" phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon sells dual GSM/CDMA " world " phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon sells dual GSM/CDMA "world" phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980208</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The maps aren't comparing equivalent networks.  They are comparing their 2G coverage to AT&amp;T's 3G coverage.</p><p>It'd be like saying that my 16 fl oz orange juice has twice the vitamin C of your 8 fl oz orange juice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The maps are n't comparing equivalent networks .
They are comparing their 2G coverage to AT&amp;T 's 3G coverage.It 'd be like saying that my 16 fl oz orange juice has twice the vitamin C of your 8 fl oz orange juice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The maps aren't comparing equivalent networks.
They are comparing their 2G coverage to AT&amp;T's 3G coverage.It'd be like saying that my 16 fl oz orange juice has twice the vitamin C of your 8 fl oz orange juice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979152</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T built two towers near me in the past year.. Just sayin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T built two towers near me in the past year.. Just sayin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T built two towers near me in the past year.. Just sayin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978826</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit, the AT&amp;T 3G coverage from the Verizon ad is taken directly form AT&amp;T's own site:<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&amp;3g=t&amp;lat=37.265625&amp;lon=-96.416015625&amp;sci=1" title="att.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&amp;3g=t&amp;lat=37.265625&amp;lon=-96.416015625&amp;sci=1</a> [att.com] <br> <br>

If AT&amp;T doesn't like it, tough shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit , the AT&amp;T 3G coverage from the Verizon ad is taken directly form AT&amp;T 's own site : http : //www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/ # ? type = voice&amp;3g = t&amp;lat = 37.265625&amp;lon = -96.416015625&amp;sci = 1 [ att.com ] If AT&amp;T does n't like it , tough shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit, the AT&amp;T 3G coverage from the Verizon ad is taken directly form AT&amp;T's own site: 

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&amp;3g=t&amp;lat=37.265625&amp;lon=-96.416015625&amp;sci=1 [att.com]  

If AT&amp;T doesn't like it, tough shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978680</id>
	<title>white areas</title>
	<author>w1</author>
	<datestamp>1257006360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see AT&amp;T's point of view, because the white areas in the maps mean different things. In Verizon's map it mean's "definitely no service" because they have no coverage other than their 3G coverage, but in AT&amp;T's map it means "probable (slower) service" because of their large 2G network. However in relation to the map's purpose they mean the same thing: "No 3G coverage"

I can see how someone might be confused by that, but as others have stated the map is accurate and I don't see how Verizon has an obligation to paint a prettier picture for AT&amp;T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see AT&amp;T 's point of view , because the white areas in the maps mean different things .
In Verizon 's map it mean 's " definitely no service " because they have no coverage other than their 3G coverage , but in AT&amp;T 's map it means " probable ( slower ) service " because of their large 2G network .
However in relation to the map 's purpose they mean the same thing : " No 3G coverage " I can see how someone might be confused by that , but as others have stated the map is accurate and I do n't see how Verizon has an obligation to paint a prettier picture for AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see AT&amp;T's point of view, because the white areas in the maps mean different things.
In Verizon's map it mean's "definitely no service" because they have no coverage other than their 3G coverage, but in AT&amp;T's map it means "probable (slower) service" because of their large 2G network.
However in relation to the map's purpose they mean the same thing: "No 3G coverage"

I can see how someone might be confused by that, but as others have stated the map is accurate and I don't see how Verizon has an obligation to paint a prettier picture for AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979142</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1257007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This ad is less deceptive than the AT&amp;T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.</p></div><p>So one has focused on speed, the other on wide coverage.  Sounds like a win-win for consumers... and now that we have all the facts, can we move on?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ad is less deceptive than the AT&amp;T one claiming the " fastest 3G network " when it is only faster because it 's smaller and does n't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.So one has focused on speed , the other on wide coverage .
Sounds like a win-win for consumers... and now that we have all the facts , can we move on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ad is less deceptive than the AT&amp;T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.So one has focused on speed, the other on wide coverage.
Sounds like a win-win for consumers... and now that we have all the facts, can we move on?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979910</id>
	<title>Re:sprint</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1257010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint roams on Verizon...</p><p>So, you've still got the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint roams on Verizon...So , you 've still got the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint roams on Verizon...So, you've still got the network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979652</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T's Own Maps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go look at AT&amp;T's own map of data coverage. http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=data&amp;lat=37.3007807135582&amp;lon=-96.3720703125&amp;sci=1</p><p>When you look at 3G it looks worse than Verizon's AT&amp;T map on the commercial. Verizon was actually giving them more credit. And if you want it even easier to read click on the voice tab and then check the 3G box at the bottom, the map removed the other data types and shows you the real 3G coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go look at AT&amp;T 's own map of data coverage .
http : //www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/ # ? type = data&amp;lat = 37.3007807135582&amp;lon = -96.3720703125&amp;sci = 1When you look at 3G it looks worse than Verizon 's AT&amp;T map on the commercial .
Verizon was actually giving them more credit .
And if you want it even easier to read click on the voice tab and then check the 3G box at the bottom , the map removed the other data types and shows you the real 3G coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go look at AT&amp;T's own map of data coverage.
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=data&amp;lat=37.3007807135582&amp;lon=-96.3720703125&amp;sci=1When you look at 3G it looks worse than Verizon's AT&amp;T map on the commercial.
Verizon was actually giving them more credit.
And if you want it even easier to read click on the voice tab and then check the 3G box at the bottom, the map removed the other data types and shows you the real 3G coverage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978784</id>
	<title>at&amp;t sore losers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It hurts AT&amp;T when a superior competitor points out the fact that they suck. This is what happens when you stop keeping score in little league and teachers grade papers in purple ink. Eventually even big corps like AT&amp;T cry like little babies when they get their feelings hurt. Boo Hoo, I don't see them manning-up when it comes to their iPhone monopoly or limiting "unlimited" data access. Pot texting the Kettle black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It hurts AT&amp;T when a superior competitor points out the fact that they suck .
This is what happens when you stop keeping score in little league and teachers grade papers in purple ink .
Eventually even big corps like AT&amp;T cry like little babies when they get their feelings hurt .
Boo Hoo , I do n't see them manning-up when it comes to their iPhone monopoly or limiting " unlimited " data access .
Pot texting the Kettle black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It hurts AT&amp;T when a superior competitor points out the fact that they suck.
This is what happens when you stop keeping score in little league and teachers grade papers in purple ink.
Eventually even big corps like AT&amp;T cry like little babies when they get their feelings hurt.
Boo Hoo, I don't see them manning-up when it comes to their iPhone monopoly or limiting "unlimited" data access.
Pot texting the Kettle black.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30012106</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>n0tquitesane</author>
	<datestamp>1257522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>agreed.  I live in an area that doesn't have 3G, and while i dislike both carriers, at least verizon has a presence here.  AT&amp;T requires I move 70 miles west just to use their phone</htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed .
I live in an area that does n't have 3G , and while i dislike both carriers , at least verizon has a presence here .
AT&amp;T requires I move 70 miles west just to use their phone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed.
I live in an area that doesn't have 3G, and while i dislike both carriers, at least verizon has a presence here.
AT&amp;T requires I move 70 miles west just to use their phone</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29990670</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, I'm getting so tired of these silly discussions.</p><p>Fortunately, there's a nap for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , I 'm getting so tired of these silly discussions.Fortunately , there 's a nap for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, I'm getting so tired of these silly discussions.Fortunately, there's a nap for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980398</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1257011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage. As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about. Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unfortunately 3G was only mentioned <i>after</i> AT&amp;T complained. Previously it just said "Out of touch" and implied that you would get <i> <b>absolutely no voice or data</b> </i> throughout vast amounts of America.</p><p>I think the editors really need to update the post - otherwise the comments are going to be filled with people making comments about the recently modified advert and not realising what was originally displayed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage .
As long as the maps are accurate , I ca n't see what they are complaining about .
Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.Unfortunately 3G was only mentioned after AT&amp;T complained .
Previously it just said " Out of touch " and implied that you would get absolutely no voice or data throughout vast amounts of America.I think the editors really need to update the post - otherwise the comments are going to be filled with people making comments about the recently modified advert and not realising what was originally displayed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage.
As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about.
Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.Unfortunately 3G was only mentioned after AT&amp;T complained.
Previously it just said "Out of touch" and implied that you would get  absolutely no voice or data  throughout vast amounts of America.I think the editors really need to update the post - otherwise the comments are going to be filled with people making comments about the recently modified advert and not realising what was originally displayed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983010</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1257019140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gets all the hype because the other phones you mention don't have the capabilities of the iPhone, the nice design hardware and software wise, and for investors -- the huge margins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gets all the hype because the other phones you mention do n't have the capabilities of the iPhone , the nice design hardware and software wise , and for investors -- the huge margins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gets all the hype because the other phones you mention don't have the capabilities of the iPhone, the nice design hardware and software wise, and for investors -- the huge margins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979342</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100\% of AT&amp;T's licensed coverage area--</p><p>I believe you are wrong. Those Alltel towers that AT &amp; T ended up with don't have EDGE at least here in the rural areas. I don't like either one of these companies. But you are right Verizon is slow, but they do have voice at least in areas that AT &amp; T doesn't. Bummer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T 's EDGE coverage map , which I believe is 100 \ % of AT&amp;T 's licensed coverage area--I believe you are wrong .
Those Alltel towers that AT &amp; T ended up with do n't have EDGE at least here in the rural areas .
I do n't like either one of these companies .
But you are right Verizon is slow , but they do have voice at least in areas that AT &amp; T does n't .
Bummer : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&amp;T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100\% of AT&amp;T's licensed coverage area--I believe you are wrong.
Those Alltel towers that AT &amp; T ended up with don't have EDGE at least here in the rural areas.
I don't like either one of these companies.
But you are right Verizon is slow, but they do have voice at least in areas that AT &amp; T doesn't.
Bummer :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980338</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad it's not actually showing the 3G coverage of each then, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad it 's not actually showing the 3G coverage of each then , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad it's not actually showing the 3G coverage of each then, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978806</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>Cornelius the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an AT&amp;T customer I hope Verizon wins this one. In fact, I believe that AT&amp;T's map is OVERSTATING their 3G coverage. I live in the middle of a supposedly heavy 3G area, yet I often see my data drop down to EDGE, even if I have 5 bars of HDSPA on my phone.<br>
<br>
It didn't use to be this way... maybe the numbers of iPhone 3G/3GS users may be oversaturating the network. But I'm getting very spotty coverage (dropped calls, incoming calls go straight to voicemail often, EDGE data only, etc) in the middle of metropolitan centers with solid 3G in every direction for 50+ miles (according to their map), while my friends on Verizon have more reliable service, even out in the middle of nowhere.<br>
<br>
The service is getting to be so bad that it's affecting non-3G service. Voice calls on non-3G phones are getting dropped like crazy. Couple weeks ago, I got a text message stating that AT&amp;T just added another cell tower in my vicinity, but I see no difference.<br>
<br>
I've been a customer for 10+ years, but when my contract expires in March, I'm out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an AT&amp;T customer I hope Verizon wins this one .
In fact , I believe that AT&amp;T 's map is OVERSTATING their 3G coverage .
I live in the middle of a supposedly heavy 3G area , yet I often see my data drop down to EDGE , even if I have 5 bars of HDSPA on my phone .
It did n't use to be this way... maybe the numbers of iPhone 3G/3GS users may be oversaturating the network .
But I 'm getting very spotty coverage ( dropped calls , incoming calls go straight to voicemail often , EDGE data only , etc ) in the middle of metropolitan centers with solid 3G in every direction for 50 + miles ( according to their map ) , while my friends on Verizon have more reliable service , even out in the middle of nowhere .
The service is getting to be so bad that it 's affecting non-3G service .
Voice calls on non-3G phones are getting dropped like crazy .
Couple weeks ago , I got a text message stating that AT&amp;T just added another cell tower in my vicinity , but I see no difference .
I 've been a customer for 10 + years , but when my contract expires in March , I 'm out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an AT&amp;T customer I hope Verizon wins this one.
In fact, I believe that AT&amp;T's map is OVERSTATING their 3G coverage.
I live in the middle of a supposedly heavy 3G area, yet I often see my data drop down to EDGE, even if I have 5 bars of HDSPA on my phone.
It didn't use to be this way... maybe the numbers of iPhone 3G/3GS users may be oversaturating the network.
But I'm getting very spotty coverage (dropped calls, incoming calls go straight to voicemail often, EDGE data only, etc) in the middle of metropolitan centers with solid 3G in every direction for 50+ miles (according to their map), while my friends on Verizon have more reliable service, even out in the middle of nowhere.
The service is getting to be so bad that it's affecting non-3G service.
Voice calls on non-3G phones are getting dropped like crazy.
Couple weeks ago, I got a text message stating that AT&amp;T just added another cell tower in my vicinity, but I see no difference.
I've been a customer for 10+ years, but when my contract expires in March, I'm out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980982</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T should post a global map...</title>
	<author>hackel</author>
	<datestamp>1257013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Illustrating how Verizon's proprietary CDMA garbage is only available in the USA and very few limited countries, while the GSM that AT&amp;T uses is available around the entire world.  That would put Verizon in their place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Illustrating how Verizon 's proprietary CDMA garbage is only available in the USA and very few limited countries , while the GSM that AT&amp;T uses is available around the entire world .
That would put Verizon in their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Illustrating how Verizon's proprietary CDMA garbage is only available in the USA and very few limited countries, while the GSM that AT&amp;T uses is available around the entire world.
That would put Verizon in their place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know we love to hate AT&amp;T but, good. Those ads are about as obvious a case of copying one's competition and a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength. We can hate AT&amp;T all we want for their crappy service but Verizon is clearly in the wrong here. IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know we love to hate AT&amp;T but , good .
Those ads are about as obvious a case of copying one 's competition and a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition 's brand strength .
We can hate AT&amp;T all we want for their crappy service but Verizon is clearly in the wrong here .
IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know we love to hate AT&amp;T but, good.
Those ads are about as obvious a case of copying one's competition and a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength.
We can hate AT&amp;T all we want for their crappy service but Verizon is clearly in the wrong here.
IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980100</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>tkrotchko</author>
	<datestamp>1257010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength"</p><p>Well, I don't think it is.  When I first saw the ad, they said pretty clearly "3G coverage".  That's not misleading.</p><p>Also, when I target a competitor, I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength.  If there is something false, then AT&amp;T is a big boy.  They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like "Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth?".</p><p>Frankly, it hard to think either AT&amp;T or Verizon is a "good guy" in any sense of the word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition 's brand strength " Well , I do n't think it is .
When I first saw the ad , they said pretty clearly " 3G coverage " .
That 's not misleading.Also , when I target a competitor , I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength .
If there is something false , then AT&amp;T is a big boy .
They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like " Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth ?
" .Frankly , it hard to think either AT&amp;T or Verizon is a " good guy " in any sense of the word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength"Well, I don't think it is.
When I first saw the ad, they said pretty clearly "3G coverage".
That's not misleading.Also, when I target a competitor, I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength.
If there is something false, then AT&amp;T is a big boy.
They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like "Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth?
".Frankly, it hard to think either AT&amp;T or Verizon is a "good guy" in any sense of the word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980512</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1257011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that Verizon's Red Map is thier 2.5G (CDMA) network, not their 3G (EVDO) network.<br>The Blue Map is AT&amp;T's actual 3G (W-CDMA) map.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Verizon 's Red Map is thier 2.5G ( CDMA ) network , not their 3G ( EVDO ) network.The Blue Map is AT&amp;T 's actual 3G ( W-CDMA ) map .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Verizon's Red Map is thier 2.5G (CDMA) network, not their 3G (EVDO) network.The Blue Map is AT&amp;T's actual 3G (W-CDMA) map.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982906</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>SensitiveMale</author>
	<datestamp>1257018900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up)"</p><p>How is it selling "2/3 as many units" yet "catching up?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" iPhone gets all the hype , and indeed it 's doing quite well for itself , but it 's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM ( though catching up ) " How is it selling " 2/3 as many units " yet " catching up ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up)"How is it selling "2/3 as many units" yet "catching up?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540</id>
	<title>Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is verizons depiction of at&amp;ts 3G coverage accurate? If so, then it couldn't be false advertising and at&amp;t is just upset that their 3G coverage looks so poor compared to verizons.

Otherwise, maybe this could fall under false advertising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is verizons depiction of at&amp;ts 3G coverage accurate ?
If so , then it could n't be false advertising and at&amp;t is just upset that their 3G coverage looks so poor compared to verizons .
Otherwise , maybe this could fall under false advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is verizons depiction of at&amp;ts 3G coverage accurate?
If so, then it couldn't be false advertising and at&amp;t is just upset that their 3G coverage looks so poor compared to verizons.
Otherwise, maybe this could fall under false advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978848</id>
	<title>VT Doesn't have that kind of 3G Coverage</title>
	<author>sam.haskins</author>
	<datestamp>1257006840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the Verizon map, it looks like they have 3G coverage over nearly the entire state of Vermont.

That'll be the day. They don't even have coverage over main streets in major towns. (though, oftentimes AT&amp;T does). I call BS on that map.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the Verizon map , it looks like they have 3G coverage over nearly the entire state of Vermont .
That 'll be the day .
They do n't even have coverage over main streets in major towns .
( though , oftentimes AT&amp;T does ) .
I call BS on that map .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the Verizon map, it looks like they have 3G coverage over nearly the entire state of Vermont.
That'll be the day.
They don't even have coverage over main streets in major towns.
(though, oftentimes AT&amp;T does).
I call BS on that map.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980320</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Verdatum</author>
	<datestamp>1257011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, marvel could sue and win if they can show the party is attempting to deceptively infringe on the trademark.  If something is so alike that it can be reasonably confused for a trademark, then it is infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , marvel could sue and win if they can show the party is attempting to deceptively infringe on the trademark .
If something is so alike that it can be reasonably confused for a trademark , then it is infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, marvel could sue and win if they can show the party is attempting to deceptively infringe on the trademark.
If something is so alike that it can be reasonably confused for a trademark, then it is infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980206</id>
	<title>looks like AT&amp;T's strategy turned against them</title>
	<author>booyabazooka</author>
	<datestamp>1257010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You live by your customers being idiots, you die by your customers being idiots.</p><p>I'd bet that if AT&amp;T has decent voice coverage and spotty 3G, it has benefited from a lot of customers not realizing that those coverage areas can be different.  Verizon's ad turns the same ignorance against them, and now they're upset about it.</p><p>The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You live by your customers being idiots , you die by your customers being idiots.I 'd bet that if AT&amp;T has decent voice coverage and spotty 3G , it has benefited from a lot of customers not realizing that those coverage areas can be different .
Verizon 's ad turns the same ignorance against them , and now they 're upset about it.The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You live by your customers being idiots, you die by your customers being idiots.I'd bet that if AT&amp;T has decent voice coverage and spotty 3G, it has benefited from a lot of customers not realizing that those coverage areas can be different.
Verizon's ad turns the same ignorance against them, and now they're upset about it.The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29996312</id>
	<title>Across the board</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257443820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't duped by either ad of Verizon, but one that irritates me is Apple's ad about the appstore. "Only on iPhone". What? I have apps on both Android, and iPhone OS devices and that ad kind of implies that you can't get those apps on anything but the iPhone. They don't even make the distinction about iPhone OS devices, because you can get them on the iPod Touch as well. You might be limited to hardware restrictions, but you have that in the iPhone models as well. I should say that Apple isn't exactly misleading they are just straight-up lying, but you get the point.<br>A lot of companies make ads that make false conclusions and mislead so if you are going to allow this lawsuit to go forward then a certain governmment body should get off of their arse and start reviewing all the others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't duped by either ad of Verizon , but one that irritates me is Apple 's ad about the appstore .
" Only on iPhone " .
What ? I have apps on both Android , and iPhone OS devices and that ad kind of implies that you ca n't get those apps on anything but the iPhone .
They do n't even make the distinction about iPhone OS devices , because you can get them on the iPod Touch as well .
You might be limited to hardware restrictions , but you have that in the iPhone models as well .
I should say that Apple is n't exactly misleading they are just straight-up lying , but you get the point.A lot of companies make ads that make false conclusions and mislead so if you are going to allow this lawsuit to go forward then a certain governmment body should get off of their arse and start reviewing all the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't duped by either ad of Verizon, but one that irritates me is Apple's ad about the appstore.
"Only on iPhone".
What? I have apps on both Android, and iPhone OS devices and that ad kind of implies that you can't get those apps on anything but the iPhone.
They don't even make the distinction about iPhone OS devices, because you can get them on the iPod Touch as well.
You might be limited to hardware restrictions, but you have that in the iPhone models as well.
I should say that Apple isn't exactly misleading they are just straight-up lying, but you get the point.A lot of companies make ads that make false conclusions and mislead so if you are going to allow this lawsuit to go forward then a certain governmment body should get off of their arse and start reviewing all the others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982168</id>
	<title>Hello, I'm an AT&amp;T ... and I'm a Verizon</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1257016920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon: Hey, what you got there AT&amp;T?<br>AT&amp;T: oh, this? It's my new iPhone.<br>Verizon: wow, very spiffy. So what apps do you have?<br>AT&amp;T: well, I have this cool mapping feature... see...<br>Verizon: I don't see anything...<br>AT&amp;T: it takes a while to load...<br>Verizon: Does it look like this when it's loaded?<br>AT&amp;T (looks at Droid phone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then sullen): go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon : Hey , what you got there AT&amp;T ? AT&amp;T : oh , this ?
It 's my new iPhone.Verizon : wow , very spiffy .
So what apps do you have ? AT&amp;T : well , I have this cool mapping feature... see...Verizon : I do n't see anything...AT&amp;T : it takes a while to load...Verizon : Does it look like this when it 's loaded ? AT&amp;T ( looks at Droid phone ... then sullen ) : go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon: Hey, what you got there AT&amp;T?AT&amp;T: oh, this?
It's my new iPhone.Verizon: wow, very spiffy.
So what apps do you have?AT&amp;T: well, I have this cool mapping feature... see...Verizon: I don't see anything...AT&amp;T: it takes a while to load...Verizon: Does it look like this when it's loaded?AT&amp;T (looks at Droid phone ... then sullen): go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979150</id>
	<title>... for that is the problem</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1257007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's clearly a take off of iPhones "there's an app for that" ad (and probably service mark). It has nothing to do with coverage, or how reliable anything is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's clearly a take off of iPhones " there 's an app for that " ad ( and probably service mark ) .
It has nothing to do with coverage , or how reliable anything is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's clearly a take off of iPhones "there's an app for that" ad (and probably service mark).
It has nothing to do with coverage, or how reliable anything is...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981010</id>
	<title>Don't worry about AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Dareth</author>
	<datestamp>1257013500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8avOiTUcD4Y" title="youtube.com">trunk monkey</a> [youtube.com] will get you first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the trunk monkey [ youtube.com ] will get you first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the trunk monkey [youtube.com] will get you first!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981854</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1257015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct, Apple is the Miley Cyrus of phones...
<br>
<br>
We sure here a lot about her/it, but it's for a specific niche crowd (tweens/"cool" people). The rest of the world continues as usual...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct , Apple is the Miley Cyrus of phones.. . We sure here a lot about her/it , but it 's for a specific niche crowd ( tweens/ " cool " people ) .
The rest of the world continues as usual.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct, Apple is the Miley Cyrus of phones...


We sure here a lot about her/it, but it's for a specific niche crowd (tweens/"cool" people).
The rest of the world continues as usual...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979440</id>
	<title>Valid complaint</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1257008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a couple of people who say they don't get it and use the recently modified advert as proof. The first version of the map used the words "Out of touch", had no small print and wrongly implied that outside of the coloured area you weren't going to get any coverage at all.
</p><p>
AT&amp;T's data coverage may be poor (I don't know, I don't live in the USA) but there aren't massive blackspots all over America as this map implied.
</p><p>
See <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/atandt-sues-verizon-over-theres-a-map-for-that-ads/" title="engadget.com">Engadget</a> [engadget.com] for more information.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a couple of people who say they do n't get it and use the recently modified advert as proof .
The first version of the map used the words " Out of touch " , had no small print and wrongly implied that outside of the coloured area you were n't going to get any coverage at all .
AT&amp;T 's data coverage may be poor ( I do n't know , I do n't live in the USA ) but there are n't massive blackspots all over America as this map implied .
See Engadget [ engadget.com ] for more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a couple of people who say they don't get it and use the recently modified advert as proof.
The first version of the map used the words "Out of touch", had no small print and wrongly implied that outside of the coloured area you weren't going to get any coverage at all.
AT&amp;T's data coverage may be poor (I don't know, I don't live in the USA) but there aren't massive blackspots all over America as this map implied.
See Engadget [engadget.com] for more information.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I understand AT&amp;T's complaint, it is still more of the same from them- just like when they claim to offer the same internet (768kbps) as RoadRunner (now up to 7mbps).</p><p>The market is smartphones right now, with the iPhone currently being #1.  VZW is about to launch a number of very high-end phones (esp. the DROID) which will chew through data, and 3G coverage is a necessity.  The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&amp;T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.</p><p>If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I understand AT&amp;T 's complaint , it is still more of the same from them- just like when they claim to offer the same internet ( 768kbps ) as RoadRunner ( now up to 7mbps ) .The market is smartphones right now , with the iPhone currently being # 1 .
VZW is about to launch a number of very high-end phones ( esp .
the DROID ) which will chew through data , and 3G coverage is a necessity .
The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&amp;T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.If you ca n't check e-mail , facebook , IM , etc , then I think it 's fair to claim you 're out of touch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I understand AT&amp;T's complaint, it is still more of the same from them- just like when they claim to offer the same internet (768kbps) as RoadRunner (now up to 7mbps).The market is smartphones right now, with the iPhone currently being #1.
VZW is about to launch a number of very high-end phones (esp.
the DROID) which will chew through data, and 3G coverage is a necessity.
The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&amp;T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29985686</id>
	<title>Dumb ad</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1256983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get the allure of "there's a map for that". Most of us live where we live and very few of us use "cell phone coverage area" as a criteria for moving. So if where I live now has good AT&amp;T coverage, I don't see how the Verizon ads are remotely effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get the allure of " there 's a map for that " .
Most of us live where we live and very few of us use " cell phone coverage area " as a criteria for moving .
So if where I live now has good AT&amp;T coverage , I do n't see how the Verizon ads are remotely effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get the allure of "there's a map for that".
Most of us live where we live and very few of us use "cell phone coverage area" as a criteria for moving.
So if where I live now has good AT&amp;T coverage, I don't see how the Verizon ads are remotely effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978796</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have AT&amp;T and an iPhone and I wasn't confused they're saying their service is more important than the fact that AT&amp;T carries the iPhone.  The fact that they're suing makes me want to drop my iPhone and get a Droid though.  It's irritating when companies think litigation is just a business strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have AT&amp;T and an iPhone and I was n't confused they 're saying their service is more important than the fact that AT&amp;T carries the iPhone .
The fact that they 're suing makes me want to drop my iPhone and get a Droid though .
It 's irritating when companies think litigation is just a business strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have AT&amp;T and an iPhone and I wasn't confused they're saying their service is more important than the fact that AT&amp;T carries the iPhone.
The fact that they're suing makes me want to drop my iPhone and get a Droid though.
It's irritating when companies think litigation is just a business strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979430</id>
	<title>About that "article"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous McCartneyf</author>
	<datestamp>1257008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a link to an article on this that <em>isn't</em> a video?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a link to an article on this that is n't a video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a link to an article on this that isn't a video?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980734</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>freemywrld</author>
	<datestamp>1257012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&amp;T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.</p></div><p>This is very true.  My workplace has two different corporate cellular plans, one through AT&amp;T and one through VZW.  I had a smartphone on the AT&amp;T network and data coverage truly was very spotty and slow.  Since I swapped for a phone on Verizon the data coverage has been far more consistent and much faster.  For the record, I live and work in a metropolitan area where most carriers would be expected to have thorough coverage, yet only Verizon gets consistent coverage in and around the city.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&amp;T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.This is very true .
My workplace has two different corporate cellular plans , one through AT&amp;T and one through VZW .
I had a smartphone on the AT&amp;T network and data coverage truly was very spotty and slow .
Since I swapped for a phone on Verizon the data coverage has been far more consistent and much faster .
For the record , I live and work in a metropolitan area where most carriers would be expected to have thorough coverage , yet only Verizon gets consistent coverage in and around the city .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&amp;T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.This is very true.
My workplace has two different corporate cellular plans, one through AT&amp;T and one through VZW.
I had a smartphone on the AT&amp;T network and data coverage truly was very spotty and slow.
Since I swapped for a phone on Verizon the data coverage has been far more consistent and much faster.
For the record, I live and work in a metropolitan area where most carriers would be expected to have thorough coverage, yet only Verizon gets consistent coverage in and around the city.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30001410</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>brassmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257423600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EVDO != 1xRTT &amp;&amp; EVDO != 2.5G !!!!!! Mod parent DOWN!</htmltext>
<tokenext>EVDO ! = 1xRTT &amp;&amp; EVDO ! = 2.5G ! ! ! ! ! !
Mod parent DOWN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EVDO != 1xRTT &amp;&amp; EVDO != 2.5G !!!!!!
Mod parent DOWN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987602</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>EvilStein</author>
	<datestamp>1256990820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and we all know how well people stop and read the small print, right?</p><p>I agree with AT&amp;T on this one. It's deceptive. Verizon has a long history about lying on their coverage maps. Remember their older maps? They used to show *the entire country* as being served by them, which is complete bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and we all know how well people stop and read the small print , right ? I agree with AT&amp;T on this one .
It 's deceptive .
Verizon has a long history about lying on their coverage maps .
Remember their older maps ?
They used to show * the entire country * as being served by them , which is complete bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and we all know how well people stop and read the small print, right?I agree with AT&amp;T on this one.
It's deceptive.
Verizon has a long history about lying on their coverage maps.
Remember their older maps?
They used to show *the entire country* as being served by them, which is complete bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983622</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257020820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome" title="mturk.com">Already been done.</a> [mturk.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Already been done .
[ mturk.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already been done.
[mturk.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980548</id>
	<title>I think Apple may have a point</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1257011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think of the phrase, "There's an app for that," phonetically, and you have a trademark on that phrase within the telecommunications industry, specifically cell phones, and someone else (Verizon) uses the phrase, "There's a map for that," phonetically, you could pretty much claim that Verizon is infringing because they ARE using that phrase with a mere "m" sound added on one word.  The entire phonetic content of the phrase in question can be easily found (and heard) in the commercial.  It's pretty obvious (to me) that they were making a play on words.  They just happen to be making a play on words that may or may not be trademarked (IANAL).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think of the phrase , " There 's an app for that , " phonetically , and you have a trademark on that phrase within the telecommunications industry , specifically cell phones , and someone else ( Verizon ) uses the phrase , " There 's a map for that , " phonetically , you could pretty much claim that Verizon is infringing because they ARE using that phrase with a mere " m " sound added on one word .
The entire phonetic content of the phrase in question can be easily found ( and heard ) in the commercial .
It 's pretty obvious ( to me ) that they were making a play on words .
They just happen to be making a play on words that may or may not be trademarked ( IANAL ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think of the phrase, "There's an app for that," phonetically, and you have a trademark on that phrase within the telecommunications industry, specifically cell phones, and someone else (Verizon) uses the phrase, "There's a map for that," phonetically, you could pretty much claim that Verizon is infringing because they ARE using that phrase with a mere "m" sound added on one word.
The entire phonetic content of the phrase in question can be easily found (and heard) in the commercial.
It's pretty obvious (to me) that they were making a play on words.
They just happen to be making a play on words that may or may not be trademarked (IANAL).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981098</id>
	<title>There's a (misleading) map for that....</title>
	<author>SwedishChef</author>
	<datestamp>1257013740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When those television ads for Verizon first appeared I noticed that the AT&amp;T map that appeared in the commercial was significantly different than the AT&amp;T coverage map depicted on the "coverage" page of the AT&amp;T website. It should come as no surprise that the Verizon's version of the map showed markedly less 3G coverage than the map AT&amp;T presented.</p><p>So the only question was: "Which map is right?" If the map in Verizon's commercials map was correct we'd hear nothing more about it but if Verizon had either deliberately tampered with the AT&amp;T coverage map depicted in their commercials or used a very old version to gain a competitive advantage then there would likely be litigation. This answers that question.</p><p>So it's not that AT&amp;T is just suing Verizon instead of updating their 3G network. It's looks like it's a case of a major ad campaign targeting potential and/or existing AT&amp;T customers using deliberately falsified material.</p><p>And that is against U.S. Federal law so AT&amp;T is apparently taking this to court.</p><p>There's an app for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When those television ads for Verizon first appeared I noticed that the AT&amp;T map that appeared in the commercial was significantly different than the AT&amp;T coverage map depicted on the " coverage " page of the AT&amp;T website .
It should come as no surprise that the Verizon 's version of the map showed markedly less 3G coverage than the map AT&amp;T presented.So the only question was : " Which map is right ?
" If the map in Verizon 's commercials map was correct we 'd hear nothing more about it but if Verizon had either deliberately tampered with the AT&amp;T coverage map depicted in their commercials or used a very old version to gain a competitive advantage then there would likely be litigation .
This answers that question.So it 's not that AT&amp;T is just suing Verizon instead of updating their 3G network .
It 's looks like it 's a case of a major ad campaign targeting potential and/or existing AT&amp;T customers using deliberately falsified material.And that is against U.S. Federal law so AT&amp;T is apparently taking this to court.There 's an app for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When those television ads for Verizon first appeared I noticed that the AT&amp;T map that appeared in the commercial was significantly different than the AT&amp;T coverage map depicted on the "coverage" page of the AT&amp;T website.
It should come as no surprise that the Verizon's version of the map showed markedly less 3G coverage than the map AT&amp;T presented.So the only question was: "Which map is right?
" If the map in Verizon's commercials map was correct we'd hear nothing more about it but if Verizon had either deliberately tampered with the AT&amp;T coverage map depicted in their commercials or used a very old version to gain a competitive advantage then there would likely be litigation.
This answers that question.So it's not that AT&amp;T is just suing Verizon instead of updating their 3G network.
It's looks like it's a case of a major ad campaign targeting potential and/or existing AT&amp;T customers using deliberately falsified material.And that is against U.S. Federal law so AT&amp;T is apparently taking this to court.There's an app for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980034</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>limaxray</author>
	<datestamp>1257010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's non-sense.  1xEVDO  Rev. A is capable of 3 Mbps and all of Verizon's network uses this technology - I'm pretty sure that falls in the the understanding of what is 3G.  In actual practice though, Verizon's network supplies a pretty consistent 1 Mbps connection all across the country, which is about 4x faster than the maximum theoretical throughput of an EDGE network. <br> <br>Furthermore, the fact that WCDMA is very inflexible and depends on 5 MHz channels means that in the few places that there actually is service, you are less likely to be able to use it because there are fewer channels serving fewer clients.  Go ask any iPhone user about the fantastic reliability of AT&amp;T's 3G network. WCDMA just doesn't fare well in markets where the use of wireless spectrum isn't dictated by government mandate as it is in the EU.  Also AT&amp;T has yet to even deploy HSPA+ on a large scale to the best of my knowledge, so to say that they're service is that much faster (although it is slightly faster) is just wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's non-sense .
1xEVDO Rev .
A is capable of 3 Mbps and all of Verizon 's network uses this technology - I 'm pretty sure that falls in the the understanding of what is 3G .
In actual practice though , Verizon 's network supplies a pretty consistent 1 Mbps connection all across the country , which is about 4x faster than the maximum theoretical throughput of an EDGE network .
Furthermore , the fact that WCDMA is very inflexible and depends on 5 MHz channels means that in the few places that there actually is service , you are less likely to be able to use it because there are fewer channels serving fewer clients .
Go ask any iPhone user about the fantastic reliability of AT&amp;T 's 3G network .
WCDMA just does n't fare well in markets where the use of wireless spectrum is n't dictated by government mandate as it is in the EU .
Also AT&amp;T has yet to even deploy HSPA + on a large scale to the best of my knowledge , so to say that they 're service is that much faster ( although it is slightly faster ) is just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's non-sense.
1xEVDO  Rev.
A is capable of 3 Mbps and all of Verizon's network uses this technology - I'm pretty sure that falls in the the understanding of what is 3G.
In actual practice though, Verizon's network supplies a pretty consistent 1 Mbps connection all across the country, which is about 4x faster than the maximum theoretical throughput of an EDGE network.
Furthermore, the fact that WCDMA is very inflexible and depends on 5 MHz channels means that in the few places that there actually is service, you are less likely to be able to use it because there are fewer channels serving fewer clients.
Go ask any iPhone user about the fantastic reliability of AT&amp;T's 3G network.
WCDMA just doesn't fare well in markets where the use of wireless spectrum isn't dictated by government mandate as it is in the EU.
Also AT&amp;T has yet to even deploy HSPA+ on a large scale to the best of my knowledge, so to say that they're service is that much faster (although it is slightly faster) is just wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Operating\_systems" title="wikipedia.org">Actually the iPhone is only 13.7\% of smart phone sales as of Q2 2009</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up), and it lags far behind Symbian which single handedly enjoys &gt; 50\% share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the iPhone is only 13.7 \ % of smart phone sales as of Q2 2009 [ wikipedia.org ] .iPhone gets all the hype , and indeed it 's doing quite well for itself , but it 's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM ( though catching up ) , and it lags far behind Symbian which single handedly enjoys &gt; 50 \ % share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the iPhone is only 13.7\% of smart phone sales as of Q2 2009 [wikipedia.org].iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up), and it lags far behind Symbian which single handedly enjoys &gt; 50\% share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981728</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Daetrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be because they're doing it intentionally as a parody of the "there's an app for that" ads, which would make it tricky for AT&amp;T to sue on those grounds.<br>
<br>
And the fact that the only grounds AT&amp;T seem to have for a lawsuit is that the ad doesn't sufficiently explain that just because their 3G network sucks doesn't mean you can't call people while outside it actually makes me take the claims made by the ad more seriously. I always assume that TV ads are misrepresenting something, but in this case apparently what they're misrepresenting is pretty damn trivial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be because they 're doing it intentionally as a parody of the " there 's an app for that " ads , which would make it tricky for AT&amp;T to sue on those grounds .
And the fact that the only grounds AT&amp;T seem to have for a lawsuit is that the ad does n't sufficiently explain that just because their 3G network sucks does n't mean you ca n't call people while outside it actually makes me take the claims made by the ad more seriously .
I always assume that TV ads are misrepresenting something , but in this case apparently what they 're misrepresenting is pretty damn trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be because they're doing it intentionally as a parody of the "there's an app for that" ads, which would make it tricky for AT&amp;T to sue on those grounds.
And the fact that the only grounds AT&amp;T seem to have for a lawsuit is that the ad doesn't sufficiently explain that just because their 3G network sucks doesn't mean you can't call people while outside it actually makes me take the claims made by the ad more seriously.
I always assume that TV ads are misrepresenting something, but in this case apparently what they're misrepresenting is pretty damn trivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978688</id>
	<title>If anything, it's AT&amp;T's ads that are misleadi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, all the "Nation's Fastest 3G Network" might be true in theory, but in practice it only holds true in limited areas around the country, and even then it's a <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/0152214/A-Possible-Cause-of-ATampTs" title="slashdot.org">crap shoot</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , all the " Nation 's Fastest 3G Network " might be true in theory , but in practice it only holds true in limited areas around the country , and even then it 's a crap shoot [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, all the "Nation's Fastest 3G Network" might be true in theory, but in practice it only holds true in limited areas around the country, and even then it's a crap shoot [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29996256</id>
	<title>Re:Valid complaint</title>
	<author>Hemispheres</author>
	<datestamp>1257443520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the original complaint was valid. Verizon changed the ad, though, to specify that they're referring to 3G coverage, and AT&amp;T is still complaining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the original complaint was valid .
Verizon changed the ad , though , to specify that they 're referring to 3G coverage , and AT&amp;T is still complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the original complaint was valid.
Verizon changed the ad, though, to specify that they're referring to 3G coverage, and AT&amp;T is still complaining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978746</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1257006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just watched the ad on youtube, and I don't find it misleading at all. Verizon has better 3G coverage than AT&amp;T. But I do see the point that non-techies might interpret no 3G coverage as no service at all. But since the ad isn't saying anything false, then I don't see how this lawsuit would succeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just watched the ad on youtube , and I do n't find it misleading at all .
Verizon has better 3G coverage than AT&amp;T .
But I do see the point that non-techies might interpret no 3G coverage as no service at all .
But since the ad is n't saying anything false , then I do n't see how this lawsuit would succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just watched the ad on youtube, and I don't find it misleading at all.
Verizon has better 3G coverage than AT&amp;T.
But I do see the point that non-techies might interpret no 3G coverage as no service at all.
But since the ad isn't saying anything false, then I don't see how this lawsuit would succeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982506</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>raitchison</author>
	<datestamp>1257017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were originally much more misleading, they did not include the <i>voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area</i> and also stated that an AT&amp;T user without 3G coverage was <b> <i>"out of touch"</i> </b> </p><p>I don't use (or like) either but I think that AT&amp;T is marginally more in the right here, for all that the VZW ads are pretty clever they are definitely misleading, even in their current form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were originally much more misleading , they did not include the voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area and also stated that an AT&amp;T user without 3G coverage was " out of touch " I do n't use ( or like ) either but I think that AT&amp;T is marginally more in the right here , for all that the VZW ads are pretty clever they are definitely misleading , even in their current form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were originally much more misleading, they did not include the voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area and also stated that an AT&amp;T user without 3G coverage was  "out of touch"  I don't use (or like) either but I think that AT&amp;T is marginally more in the right here, for all that the VZW ads are pretty clever they are definitely misleading, even in their current form.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978664</id>
	<title>Verizon/Palm Pre</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help but think this is just a ploy by AT&amp;T to attempt to avoid customer loss after the new year. I think the anticipation of the Verizon Palm Pre, as well as the recent Android phone arrivals has AT&amp;T and Apple shaking in their boots.</p><p>Some may argue the iPhone is superior to the Pre, and that may be so. I personally think they are both great phones that offer similar features. However, combining the Pre with Verizon's coverage is going to make AT&amp;T hurt in a bad way, and these commercials highlighting the significant difference in 3G coverage has already hurt them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but think this is just a ploy by AT&amp;T to attempt to avoid customer loss after the new year .
I think the anticipation of the Verizon Palm Pre , as well as the recent Android phone arrivals has AT&amp;T and Apple shaking in their boots.Some may argue the iPhone is superior to the Pre , and that may be so .
I personally think they are both great phones that offer similar features .
However , combining the Pre with Verizon 's coverage is going to make AT&amp;T hurt in a bad way , and these commercials highlighting the significant difference in 3G coverage has already hurt them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but think this is just a ploy by AT&amp;T to attempt to avoid customer loss after the new year.
I think the anticipation of the Verizon Palm Pre, as well as the recent Android phone arrivals has AT&amp;T and Apple shaking in their boots.Some may argue the iPhone is superior to the Pre, and that may be so.
I personally think they are both great phones that offer similar features.
However, combining the Pre with Verizon's coverage is going to make AT&amp;T hurt in a bad way, and these commercials highlighting the significant difference in 3G coverage has already hurt them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981740</id>
	<title>why isn't apple sueing?</title>
	<author>cdpage</author>
	<datestamp>1257015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i mean if anyone here can get away with it it'll be apple.<br><br>There's an app for that<br><br>There's a map for that.<br><br>hmm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>i mean if anyone here can get away with it it 'll be apple.There 's an app for thatThere 's a map for that.hmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i mean if anyone here can get away with it it'll be apple.There's an app for thatThere's a map for that.hmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979504</id>
	<title>Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon's EVDO service comes in 2 speeds. Rev A is 3 times faster than ATT 3G</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon 's EVDO service comes in 2 speeds .
Rev A is 3 times faster than ATT 3G</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon's EVDO service comes in 2 speeds.
Rev A is 3 times faster than ATT 3G</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978640</id>
	<title>3g doesn't mean fast internet</title>
	<author>vxvxvxvx</author>
	<datestamp>1257006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the technology itself is capable of decent bandwidth, the implementations are pretty terrible. Run low bandwidth wires to the cell towers and you just move the bottleneck somewhere else. 3g is more of a buzzword than anything at this point, until we actually start taking advantage of all that the technology has to offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the technology itself is capable of decent bandwidth , the implementations are pretty terrible .
Run low bandwidth wires to the cell towers and you just move the bottleneck somewhere else .
3g is more of a buzzword than anything at this point , until we actually start taking advantage of all that the technology has to offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the technology itself is capable of decent bandwidth, the implementations are pretty terrible.
Run low bandwidth wires to the cell towers and you just move the bottleneck somewhere else.
3g is more of a buzzword than anything at this point, until we actually start taking advantage of all that the technology has to offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983454</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257020340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.</p></div><p>I hate to defend those commercials, but...  they all say "with diet and exercise" as an addendum to all of their weight loss claims, and most of them say "not FDA approved" in the fine print.</p><p>Sure, what they're selling is little more than a vitamin pill, but it's not technically <i>false</i> advertising if you remember "with diet and exercise".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , come on , if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication , false advertising does happen.I hate to defend those commercials , but... they all say " with diet and exercise " as an addendum to all of their weight loss claims , and most of them say " not FDA approved " in the fine print.Sure , what they 're selling is little more than a vitamin pill , but it 's not technically false advertising if you remember " with diet and exercise " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.I hate to defend those commercials, but...  they all say "with diet and exercise" as an addendum to all of their weight loss claims, and most of them say "not FDA approved" in the fine print.Sure, what they're selling is little more than a vitamin pill, but it's not technically false advertising if you remember "with diet and exercise".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979402</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>postbigbang</author>
	<datestamp>1257008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AT&amp;T uses the *world* as its domain-- where UMTS, EDGE, and GPRS are available to portend that it has the most coverage.</p><p>Limit the scope to the 50 US States, and Verizon is right.</p><p>But they had to save face..... and perhaps customers that are giving Verizon and (damnation by faint praise) Sprint share-- despite the iPhone phenomenon. AT&amp;T is crippling Apple's growth, and Apple and AT&amp;T know it.</p><p>CDMA may or may not suck (this is the transport with 1xRTT and ED.VO and ED.VOa) but capacity is king in saturated airspace and CDMA can do it; GSM is having more problems- and AT&amp;T's GSM deployment is clearly #4 out of five in the US cell service list.</p><p>Would I get an iPhone if it could use EV? Maybe. I don't like buying into Apple's Jailed Ecosystems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AT&amp;T uses the * world * as its domain-- where UMTS , EDGE , and GPRS are available to portend that it has the most coverage.Limit the scope to the 50 US States , and Verizon is right.But they had to save face..... and perhaps customers that are giving Verizon and ( damnation by faint praise ) Sprint share-- despite the iPhone phenomenon .
AT&amp;T is crippling Apple 's growth , and Apple and AT&amp;T know it.CDMA may or may not suck ( this is the transport with 1xRTT and ED.VO and ED.VOa ) but capacity is king in saturated airspace and CDMA can do it ; GSM is having more problems- and AT&amp;T 's GSM deployment is clearly # 4 out of five in the US cell service list.Would I get an iPhone if it could use EV ?
Maybe. I do n't like buying into Apple 's Jailed Ecosystems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AT&amp;T uses the *world* as its domain-- where UMTS, EDGE, and GPRS are available to portend that it has the most coverage.Limit the scope to the 50 US States, and Verizon is right.But they had to save face..... and perhaps customers that are giving Verizon and (damnation by faint praise) Sprint share-- despite the iPhone phenomenon.
AT&amp;T is crippling Apple's growth, and Apple and AT&amp;T know it.CDMA may or may not suck (this is the transport with 1xRTT and ED.VO and ED.VOa) but capacity is king in saturated airspace and CDMA can do it; GSM is having more problems- and AT&amp;T's GSM deployment is clearly #4 out of five in the US cell service list.Would I get an iPhone if it could use EV?
Maybe. I don't like buying into Apple's Jailed Ecosystems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983654</id>
	<title>Boo hoo</title>
	<author>Dewser</author>
	<datestamp>1257020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say take all that iPhone money and invest it back into the network!!  As a former Verizon customer now turned AT&amp;T slave because I wanted an iPhone, I am a little sad that I was swayed over such a phone as nice as it is.  Granted at my last two homes I had barely 2 bars for Verizon and now have full bars for AT&amp;T.  Then again the calls still drop.  Go figure.  So even if they used accurate facts, I would still say "sure they have coverage but it ain't that reliable!"  I have a feeling that after the 2 years I may be swinging back to Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say take all that iPhone money and invest it back into the network ! !
As a former Verizon customer now turned AT&amp;T slave because I wanted an iPhone , I am a little sad that I was swayed over such a phone as nice as it is .
Granted at my last two homes I had barely 2 bars for Verizon and now have full bars for AT&amp;T .
Then again the calls still drop .
Go figure .
So even if they used accurate facts , I would still say " sure they have coverage but it ai n't that reliable !
" I have a feeling that after the 2 years I may be swinging back to Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say take all that iPhone money and invest it back into the network!!
As a former Verizon customer now turned AT&amp;T slave because I wanted an iPhone, I am a little sad that I was swayed over such a phone as nice as it is.
Granted at my last two homes I had barely 2 bars for Verizon and now have full bars for AT&amp;T.
Then again the calls still drop.
Go figure.
So even if they used accurate facts, I would still say "sure they have coverage but it ain't that reliable!
"  I have a feeling that after the 2 years I may be swinging back to Verizon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982292</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>ZaphDingbat</author>
	<datestamp>1257017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I also thought when I heard them on the radio-- Verizon was just asking for a lawsuit with that phrase. I was confused at first and thought it was an iPhone ad until I recognized the Verizon music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I also thought when I heard them on the radio-- Verizon was just asking for a lawsuit with that phrase .
I was confused at first and thought it was an iPhone ad until I recognized the Verizon music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I also thought when I heard them on the radio-- Verizon was just asking for a lawsuit with that phrase.
I was confused at first and thought it was an iPhone ad until I recognized the Verizon music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disagree completely.  I think the ads are quite obvious in that</p><p>A) It clearly states it is a 3G coverage map</p><p>and</p><p>B) There is a sentence on the bottom of the screen that says that voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area.</p><p>IIRC, the ad says "3G" about 1 brazillion times as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagree completely .
I think the ads are quite obvious in thatA ) It clearly states it is a 3G coverage mapandB ) There is a sentence on the bottom of the screen that says that voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area.IIRC , the ad says " 3G " about 1 brazillion times as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagree completely.
I think the ads are quite obvious in thatA) It clearly states it is a 3G coverage mapandB) There is a sentence on the bottom of the screen that says that voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area.IIRC, the ad says "3G" about 1 brazillion times as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979416</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1257008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a clear cut case of fair use. They are parodizing the competition's catch phrase to sell their own service. This is 100\% fair use. As far as this being misleading -- the ads clearly contain all of the pertinent information, and are entirely factually accurate. This is not even a case, it is a complete farce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a clear cut case of fair use .
They are parodizing the competition 's catch phrase to sell their own service .
This is 100 \ % fair use .
As far as this being misleading -- the ads clearly contain all of the pertinent information , and are entirely factually accurate .
This is not even a case , it is a complete farce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a clear cut case of fair use.
They are parodizing the competition's catch phrase to sell their own service.
This is 100\% fair use.
As far as this being misleading -- the ads clearly contain all of the pertinent information, and are entirely factually accurate.
This is not even a case, it is a complete farce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981974</id>
	<title>Taking a "Core" Dump, Brown Apple</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1257016380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Apple, "I have a CRAP for that", right on the doorstep of 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California</p><p>Go screw yourselves for thinking you can copyright every damn thing.</p><p>Oh and Steve, your hooker called and she caught something from you and her Pimp "had a bitch SLAP for that".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Apple , " I have a CRAP for that " , right on the doorstep of 1 Infinite Loop , Cupertino , CaliforniaGo screw yourselves for thinking you can copyright every damn thing.Oh and Steve , your hooker called and she caught something from you and her Pimp " had a bitch SLAP for that " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Apple, "I have a CRAP for that", right on the doorstep of 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CaliforniaGo screw yourselves for thinking you can copyright every damn thing.Oh and Steve, your hooker called and she caught something from you and her Pimp "had a bitch SLAP for that".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29984458</id>
	<title>Re:OT: The Caring Continuum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But for all intensive purposes, you know what they meant!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But for all intensive purposes , you know what they meant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But for all intensive purposes, you know what they meant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978738</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>Fred IV</author>
	<datestamp>1257006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T has voiced no issue with the accuracy of the maps. Their claim is that consumers are too dumb to know that the map is comparing 3G data coverage and not voice coverage, even though the ad makes that comparison clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T has voiced no issue with the accuracy of the maps .
Their claim is that consumers are too dumb to know that the map is comparing 3G data coverage and not voice coverage , even though the ad makes that comparison clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T has voiced no issue with the accuracy of the maps.
Their claim is that consumers are too dumb to know that the map is comparing 3G data coverage and not voice coverage, even though the ad makes that comparison clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979732</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T is sending misleading emails</title>
	<author>jaredforshey</author>
	<datestamp>1257009600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What annoys me about this is that just a few days ago I got an email from AT&amp;T saying that they've installed new towers in my area and expanded 3G coverage.  They had a link to their coverage maps that said "Click here for 3G coverage maps" with a thumbnail of the orange voice coverage map, which is of course much much more dense than their spotty blue 3G map.  I found it extremely misleading and would have just assumed that was really their 3G coverage except that I had seen the Verizon commercial recently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What annoys me about this is that just a few days ago I got an email from AT&amp;T saying that they 've installed new towers in my area and expanded 3G coverage .
They had a link to their coverage maps that said " Click here for 3G coverage maps " with a thumbnail of the orange voice coverage map , which is of course much much more dense than their spotty blue 3G map .
I found it extremely misleading and would have just assumed that was really their 3G coverage except that I had seen the Verizon commercial recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What annoys me about this is that just a few days ago I got an email from AT&amp;T saying that they've installed new towers in my area and expanded 3G coverage.
They had a link to their coverage maps that said "Click here for 3G coverage maps" with a thumbnail of the orange voice coverage map, which is of course much much more dense than their spotty blue 3G map.
I found it extremely misleading and would have just assumed that was really their 3G coverage except that I had seen the Verizon commercial recently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978672</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>kellyb9</author>
	<datestamp>1257006360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is obviously a parody of those advertisements. Isn't that covered?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously a parody of those advertisements .
Is n't that covered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously a parody of those advertisements.
Isn't that covered?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30007636</id>
	<title>the news...</title>
	<author>stoned\_hamster</author>
	<datestamp>1257535560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"New app announced that lets anyone immediatly sue another, called 'Appsue'. apparently it was created because the big companies needed an easier  method of suing each other, and a third party invented this app. More details at eleven!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" New app announced that lets anyone immediatly sue another , called 'Appsue' .
apparently it was created because the big companies needed an easier method of suing each other , and a third party invented this app .
More details at eleven !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"New app announced that lets anyone immediatly sue another, called 'Appsue'.
apparently it was created because the big companies needed an easier  method of suing each other, and a third party invented this app.
More details at eleven!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981668</id>
	<title>All about play on words</title>
	<author>ChemGeek4501</author>
	<datestamp>1257015480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see it as all as a lawsuit over the data visualization - but as a play on the iPhone's "There's an Ap for that" phrase.  The first time I HEARD the commerical, I was sure they were saying "Ap" as opposed to "Map" - but it became clear once I SAW the commerical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see it as all as a lawsuit over the data visualization - but as a play on the iPhone 's " There 's an Ap for that " phrase .
The first time I HEARD the commerical , I was sure they were saying " Ap " as opposed to " Map " - but it became clear once I SAW the commerical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see it as all as a lawsuit over the data visualization - but as a play on the iPhone's "There's an Ap for that" phrase.
The first time I HEARD the commerical, I was sure they were saying "Ap" as opposed to "Map" - but it became clear once I SAW the commerical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980128</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1257010740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because HAM radio is so much more private than AT&amp;T cellular service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because HAM radio is so much more private than AT&amp;T cellular service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because HAM radio is so much more private than AT&amp;T cellular service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979358</id>
	<title>Re:OT: The Caring Continuum</title>
	<author>Kleppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I could care less... I just would have forwent the posting of not caring thus not caring more than I cared to post about caring that I cared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I could care less... I just would have forwent the posting of not caring thus not caring more than I cared to post about caring that I cared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I could care less... I just would have forwent the posting of not caring thus not caring more than I cared to post about caring that I cared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954</id>
	<title>I hope they don't sue ME, too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks." My motto?<br> <br>

<b>There's an APE for that.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was going to start a " temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks .
" My motto ?
There 's an APE for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks.
" My motto?
There's an APE for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978744</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>Scootin159</author>
	<datestamp>1257006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know for a fact they're not 100\% accurate - Verizon's map shows 100\% 3G coverage for all land within a 20 mile radius of my in-laws house.  However, Verizon customers (them) get zero signal there (even when standing outdoors away from any obstructions) - not even enough to send a text message.</p><p>Conversely, AT&amp;T shows zero 3G coverage there, and "spotty" EDGE coverage within a 20 mile radius.  However, I (AT&amp;T) get nearly full 3G signal there, with great speeds.</p><p>However, one case point like this only shows they're not 100\% accurate, it makes no indication of a general trend between the two.</p><p>What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution.  What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers (AT&amp;T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know for a fact they 're not 100 \ % accurate - Verizon 's map shows 100 \ % 3G coverage for all land within a 20 mile radius of my in-laws house .
However , Verizon customers ( them ) get zero signal there ( even when standing outdoors away from any obstructions ) - not even enough to send a text message.Conversely , AT&amp;T shows zero 3G coverage there , and " spotty " EDGE coverage within a 20 mile radius .
However , I ( AT&amp;T ) get nearly full 3G signal there , with great speeds.However , one case point like this only shows they 're not 100 \ % accurate , it makes no indication of a general trend between the two.What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution .
What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers ( AT&amp;T , Verizon , T-Mobile , Sprint , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know for a fact they're not 100\% accurate - Verizon's map shows 100\% 3G coverage for all land within a 20 mile radius of my in-laws house.
However, Verizon customers (them) get zero signal there (even when standing outdoors away from any obstructions) - not even enough to send a text message.Conversely, AT&amp;T shows zero 3G coverage there, and "spotty" EDGE coverage within a 20 mile radius.
However, I (AT&amp;T) get nearly full 3G signal there, with great speeds.However, one case point like this only shows they're not 100\% accurate, it makes no indication of a general trend between the two.What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution.
What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers (AT&amp;T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983430</id>
	<title>Re:I think Apple may have a point</title>
	<author>amliebsch</author>
	<datestamp>1257020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple are not suing, AT&amp;T is, and furthermore, obvious parody is a well-entrenched example of fair use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple are not suing , AT&amp;T is , and furthermore , obvious parody is a well-entrenched example of fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple are not suing, AT&amp;T is, and furthermore, obvious parody is a well-entrenched example of fair use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980584</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T shot themself in the foot</title>
	<author>Filgy</author>
	<datestamp>1257012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T's "branded" 3G is HSDPA. However, EDGE is also actually considered a 3G technology, but AT&amp;T labels it as 2.75G or 2.5G or something so as to not confuse customers by having 2 different 3G techs. The actual specs for 3G include EDGE as a 3G protocol.<br> <br>

Basically, verizons 3G service cdma2000, was a bolt on replacement upgrade to go from their 2G tech (cdmaOne). EDGE for AT&amp;T was also a bolt on upgrade from their 2G tech (GPRS - a TDMA signal, not CDMA). Verizon just stopped after doing this bolt on upgrade so their entire network is considered 3G pretty much.<br> <br>

AT&amp;T then decided to go with an entirely different 3G technology because it was way faster than EDGE (even though EDGE is considered a 3G tech). This new tech was HSDPA which is based on a CDMA network, not TDMA. Therefore, AT&amp;T has to deploy entirely new towers to roll out this new 3G service so their 3G map is much smaller than Verizons. Technically EDGE is still a 3G tech though.<br> <br>

If AT&amp;T still marketed EDGE as 3G and then maybe HSDPA as 3.25G or something, Verizon could not be making this claim. And technically speaking, AT&amp;T would be on solid ground for doing so.<br> <br>

See the "Overview of 3G/IMT-2000 standards" chart at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G</a> [wikipedia.org] to clarify.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T 's " branded " 3G is HSDPA .
However , EDGE is also actually considered a 3G technology , but AT&amp;T labels it as 2.75G or 2.5G or something so as to not confuse customers by having 2 different 3G techs .
The actual specs for 3G include EDGE as a 3G protocol .
Basically , verizons 3G service cdma2000 , was a bolt on replacement upgrade to go from their 2G tech ( cdmaOne ) .
EDGE for AT&amp;T was also a bolt on upgrade from their 2G tech ( GPRS - a TDMA signal , not CDMA ) .
Verizon just stopped after doing this bolt on upgrade so their entire network is considered 3G pretty much .
AT&amp;T then decided to go with an entirely different 3G technology because it was way faster than EDGE ( even though EDGE is considered a 3G tech ) .
This new tech was HSDPA which is based on a CDMA network , not TDMA .
Therefore , AT&amp;T has to deploy entirely new towers to roll out this new 3G service so their 3G map is much smaller than Verizons .
Technically EDGE is still a 3G tech though .
If AT&amp;T still marketed EDGE as 3G and then maybe HSDPA as 3.25G or something , Verizon could not be making this claim .
And technically speaking , AT&amp;T would be on solid ground for doing so .
See the " Overview of 3G/IMT-2000 standards " chart at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G [ wikipedia.org ] to clarify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T's "branded" 3G is HSDPA.
However, EDGE is also actually considered a 3G technology, but AT&amp;T labels it as 2.75G or 2.5G or something so as to not confuse customers by having 2 different 3G techs.
The actual specs for 3G include EDGE as a 3G protocol.
Basically, verizons 3G service cdma2000, was a bolt on replacement upgrade to go from their 2G tech (cdmaOne).
EDGE for AT&amp;T was also a bolt on upgrade from their 2G tech (GPRS - a TDMA signal, not CDMA).
Verizon just stopped after doing this bolt on upgrade so their entire network is considered 3G pretty much.
AT&amp;T then decided to go with an entirely different 3G technology because it was way faster than EDGE (even though EDGE is considered a 3G tech).
This new tech was HSDPA which is based on a CDMA network, not TDMA.
Therefore, AT&amp;T has to deploy entirely new towers to roll out this new 3G service so their 3G map is much smaller than Verizons.
Technically EDGE is still a 3G tech though.
If AT&amp;T still marketed EDGE as 3G and then maybe HSDPA as 3.25G or something, Verizon could not be making this claim.
And technically speaking, AT&amp;T would be on solid ground for doing so.
See the "Overview of 3G/IMT-2000 standards" chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G [wikipedia.org] to clarify.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I hear those commercials, it always sounds like "There's an app for that"  They run "a map" together too quickly, obviously trying to make "a m" sound like "an".  Can you trademark the homophone of a catchphrase?  IE, can Marvel sue if I have a rock-covered guy in a movie yell "It's clobberin' thyme!", even if it's appropriately used (the villain is punching a spice factory).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I hear those commercials , it always sounds like " There 's an app for that " They run " a map " together too quickly , obviously trying to make " a m " sound like " an " .
Can you trademark the homophone of a catchphrase ?
IE , can Marvel sue if I have a rock-covered guy in a movie yell " It 's clobberin ' thyme !
" , even if it 's appropriately used ( the villain is punching a spice factory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I hear those commercials, it always sounds like "There's an app for that"  They run "a map" together too quickly, obviously trying to make "a m" sound like "an".
Can you trademark the homophone of a catchphrase?
IE, can Marvel sue if I have a rock-covered guy in a movie yell "It's clobberin' thyme!
", even if it's appropriately used (the villain is punching a spice factory).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980098</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Blitz22</author>
	<datestamp>1257010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/282/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/282/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/282/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/282/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987688</id>
	<title>Re:Are the maps accurate?</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1256991120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution. What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers (AT&amp;T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>That should be fairly simple: write an app that polls both the GPS position, and the signal strength, at regular intervals (every 5 minutes, perhaps?).  Then have it feed back to a central server, and aggregate the data.  (And, of course, queue the feedback, for times when signal == 0.)</p><p>Fairly quickly, we'd have very good maps.</p><p>Then as new towers were constructed and brought on-line, the viewer portion could use diffs and show new areas in a different color (etc).</p><p>This would work well on Droid et al, but on the iPhone which can't run apps simultaneously, it would have to come from Apple to be able to run in the background (like the Clock app can, and the one I initially downloaded (not knowing a timer was built-in) could not -- and helped me burn my dinner).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution .
What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers ( AT&amp;T , Verizon , T-Mobile , Sprint , etc. ) .
That should be fairly simple : write an app that polls both the GPS position , and the signal strength , at regular intervals ( every 5 minutes , perhaps ? ) .
Then have it feed back to a central server , and aggregate the data .
( And , of course , queue the feedback , for times when signal = = 0 .
) Fairly quickly , we 'd have very good maps.Then as new towers were constructed and brought on-line , the viewer portion could use diffs and show new areas in a different color ( etc ) .This would work well on Droid et al , but on the iPhone which ca n't run apps simultaneously , it would have to come from Apple to be able to run in the background ( like the Clock app can , and the one I initially downloaded ( not knowing a timer was built-in ) could not -- and helped me burn my dinner ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution.
What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers (AT&amp;T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.).
That should be fairly simple: write an app that polls both the GPS position, and the signal strength, at regular intervals (every 5 minutes, perhaps?).
Then have it feed back to a central server, and aggregate the data.
(And, of course, queue the feedback, for times when signal == 0.
)Fairly quickly, we'd have very good maps.Then as new towers were constructed and brought on-line, the viewer portion could use diffs and show new areas in a different color (etc).This would work well on Droid et al, but on the iPhone which can't run apps simultaneously, it would have to come from Apple to be able to run in the background (like the Clock app can, and the one I initially downloaded (not knowing a timer was built-in) could not -- and helped me burn my dinner).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981676</id>
	<title>Re:3g doesn't mean fast internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257015480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other thing that makes 3G a buzzword is the narrow focus on bandwidth. It's understandable since consumers are conditioned to think that way by their experience with residential internet connections, but it's much less important for mobile data access on cell phones. Unless you're streaming audio or video, it's unlikely that a high bandwidth, high latency connection will be faster than a lower bandwidth, lower latency connection. For web browsing, email, IM, maps and a lot of typical smart phone activities, latency is a bigger factor in the perceived speed.</p><p>This is especially true when you consider that many phones are underpowered...it doesn't do you any good to receive an entire web page in under a second if it then takes you 2 seconds to render the page. At least some of that render time could be used for data transfer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other thing that makes 3G a buzzword is the narrow focus on bandwidth .
It 's understandable since consumers are conditioned to think that way by their experience with residential internet connections , but it 's much less important for mobile data access on cell phones .
Unless you 're streaming audio or video , it 's unlikely that a high bandwidth , high latency connection will be faster than a lower bandwidth , lower latency connection .
For web browsing , email , IM , maps and a lot of typical smart phone activities , latency is a bigger factor in the perceived speed.This is especially true when you consider that many phones are underpowered...it does n't do you any good to receive an entire web page in under a second if it then takes you 2 seconds to render the page .
At least some of that render time could be used for data transfer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other thing that makes 3G a buzzword is the narrow focus on bandwidth.
It's understandable since consumers are conditioned to think that way by their experience with residential internet connections, but it's much less important for mobile data access on cell phones.
Unless you're streaming audio or video, it's unlikely that a high bandwidth, high latency connection will be faster than a lower bandwidth, lower latency connection.
For web browsing, email, IM, maps and a lot of typical smart phone activities, latency is a bigger factor in the perceived speed.This is especially true when you consider that many phones are underpowered...it doesn't do you any good to receive an entire web page in under a second if it then takes you 2 seconds to render the page.
At least some of that render time could be used for data transfer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982536</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did you ruin his world view with facts? Clearly Apple has the most marketshare with the iPhone based on the amount of advertising done for the product and news reports on it. Also, Mac vs Window is split 50/50 based on advertising and news reports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did you ruin his world view with facts ?
Clearly Apple has the most marketshare with the iPhone based on the amount of advertising done for the product and news reports on it .
Also , Mac vs Window is split 50/50 based on advertising and news reports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did you ruin his world view with facts?
Clearly Apple has the most marketshare with the iPhone based on the amount of advertising done for the product and news reports on it.
Also, Mac vs Window is split 50/50 based on advertising and news reports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987006</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not seeing it.</title>
	<author>caution live frogs</author>
	<datestamp>1256988660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were getting dropped about once per phone call. After a quick visit to the nearest AT&amp;T store (with a printout listing recent dropped calls in hand) we fixed the problem - by replacing our phones with iPhone 3GS models. AT&amp;T seems to be selectively dropping non-iPhone users to keep bandwidth available. We had just resigned earlier this year so were stuck with them no matter what.</p><p>I figure if I can't solve the issue I might as well be a part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were getting dropped about once per phone call .
After a quick visit to the nearest AT&amp;T store ( with a printout listing recent dropped calls in hand ) we fixed the problem - by replacing our phones with iPhone 3GS models .
AT&amp;T seems to be selectively dropping non-iPhone users to keep bandwidth available .
We had just resigned earlier this year so were stuck with them no matter what.I figure if I ca n't solve the issue I might as well be a part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were getting dropped about once per phone call.
After a quick visit to the nearest AT&amp;T store (with a printout listing recent dropped calls in hand) we fixed the problem - by replacing our phones with iPhone 3GS models.
AT&amp;T seems to be selectively dropping non-iPhone users to keep bandwidth available.
We had just resigned earlier this year so were stuck with them no matter what.I figure if I can't solve the issue I might as well be a part of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980030</id>
	<title>your crabapples are ap</title>
	<author>bryz</author>
	<datestamp>1257010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i'm sorry you're wrong.

If you compare verizon's maps here:
<a href="http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST&amp;lid=//global//plans//coverage+maps" title="verizonwireless.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST&amp;lid=//global//plans//coverage+maps</a> [verizonwireless.com]

you'll see the difference between normal digital service (1X) and their "broadband" 3g service (EVDO REVA / B / etc) It's just that the two maps are so similar that you may be getting confused.

You can also get it explained/compared with AT&amp;T, sprint, T-mo here:
<a href="http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf" title="verizonwireless.com" rel="nofollow">http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf</a> [verizonwireless.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm sorry you 're wrong .
If you compare verizon 's maps here : http : //www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController ? requesttype = NEWREQUEST&amp;lid = //global//plans//coverage + maps [ verizonwireless.com ] you 'll see the difference between normal digital service ( 1X ) and their " broadband " 3g service ( EVDO REVA / B / etc ) It 's just that the two maps are so similar that you may be getting confused .
You can also get it explained/compared with AT&amp;T , sprint , T-mo here : http : //vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf [ verizonwireless.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm sorry you're wrong.
If you compare verizon's maps here:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST&amp;lid=//global//plans//coverage+maps [verizonwireless.com]

you'll see the difference between normal digital service (1X) and their "broadband" 3g service (EVDO REVA / B / etc) It's just that the two maps are so similar that you may be getting confused.
You can also get it explained/compared with AT&amp;T, sprint, T-mo here:
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf [verizonwireless.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986184</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T should post a global map...</title>
	<author>SeaFox</author>
	<datestamp>1256985420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GSM AT&amp;T uses is not available "around the world". Most of AT&amp;T's network is on 850 mhz band, which is only used in the United States -- on AT&amp;T's network. This is why people traveling overseas are always looking for quad-band phones, because the inclusion of AT&amp;T's 850 mhz band means the <i>exclusion</i> of the 900mhz band used in Europe on dual or tri-band phones most often.</p><p>T-Mobile uses only the 1900mhz GSM band. Which is why many unlocked European versions of handsets can be used on T-Mobile's network fine (leading to importing of handsets not available in Amercia sometimes). This is also why you can take an Unlocked AT&amp;T handset and use it on T-Mobile quite often (I am). But not the reverse, because sometimes the handsets T-Mobile sells are models originally developed for European markets and therefore don't include the 850mhz band needed by AT&amp;T, but the AT&amp;T handsets always include 1900mhz as one of the "other" frequencies they support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GSM AT&amp;T uses is not available " around the world " .
Most of AT&amp;T 's network is on 850 mhz band , which is only used in the United States -- on AT&amp;T 's network .
This is why people traveling overseas are always looking for quad-band phones , because the inclusion of AT&amp;T 's 850 mhz band means the exclusion of the 900mhz band used in Europe on dual or tri-band phones most often.T-Mobile uses only the 1900mhz GSM band .
Which is why many unlocked European versions of handsets can be used on T-Mobile 's network fine ( leading to importing of handsets not available in Amercia sometimes ) .
This is also why you can take an Unlocked AT&amp;T handset and use it on T-Mobile quite often ( I am ) .
But not the reverse , because sometimes the handsets T-Mobile sells are models originally developed for European markets and therefore do n't include the 850mhz band needed by AT&amp;T , but the AT&amp;T handsets always include 1900mhz as one of the " other " frequencies they support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GSM AT&amp;T uses is not available "around the world".
Most of AT&amp;T's network is on 850 mhz band, which is only used in the United States -- on AT&amp;T's network.
This is why people traveling overseas are always looking for quad-band phones, because the inclusion of AT&amp;T's 850 mhz band means the exclusion of the 900mhz band used in Europe on dual or tri-band phones most often.T-Mobile uses only the 1900mhz GSM band.
Which is why many unlocked European versions of handsets can be used on T-Mobile's network fine (leading to importing of handsets not available in Amercia sometimes).
This is also why you can take an Unlocked AT&amp;T handset and use it on T-Mobile quite often (I am).
But not the reverse, because sometimes the handsets T-Mobile sells are models originally developed for European markets and therefore don't include the 850mhz band needed by AT&amp;T, but the AT&amp;T handsets always include 1900mhz as one of the "other" frequencies they support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979568</id>
	<title>Re:OT: The Caring Continuum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When one usually states "I could care less", they usually mean "I could not care less" and is illiterate.</p></div><p>Fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When one usually states " I could care less " , they usually mean " I could not care less " and is illiterate.Fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When one usually states "I could care less", they usually mean "I could not care less" and is illiterate.Fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983672</id>
	<title>Re:Valid complaint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257020940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long did that run for? Because I've seen this ad a lot but never that version. So AT&amp;T's claim should only apply to that period and not to the whole campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long did that run for ?
Because I 've seen this ad a lot but never that version .
So AT&amp;T 's claim should only apply to that period and not to the whole campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long did that run for?
Because I've seen this ad a lot but never that version.
So AT&amp;T's claim should only apply to that period and not to the whole campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981620</id>
	<title>Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.</title>
	<author>roaddemon</author>
	<datestamp>1257015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome.  I'm really looking forward to the Pandora Ape and the GPS Ape, but you'll have to excuse my cynicism regarding the effectiveness of the Baby Monitor Ape.</p><p>F</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome .
I 'm really looking forward to the Pandora Ape and the GPS Ape , but you 'll have to excuse my cynicism regarding the effectiveness of the Baby Monitor Ape.F</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome.
I'm really looking forward to the Pandora Ape and the GPS Ape, but you'll have to excuse my cynicism regarding the effectiveness of the Baby Monitor Ape.F</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980152</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257010860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> If AT&amp;T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.<br></i><br>Good luck talking to the electric company (or nearly anybody else on a POTS or cell who doesn't have ham) with that ham radio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If AT&amp;T were the last cell phone company , I 'd get a ham radio license before using them.Good luck talking to the electric company ( or nearly anybody else on a POTS or cell who does n't have ham ) with that ham radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If AT&amp;T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.Good luck talking to the electric company (or nearly anybody else on a POTS or cell who doesn't have ham) with that ham radio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982440</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1257017640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except they aren't suing them for copying anything. And it has nothing to do with trademarks or branding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they are n't suing them for copying anything .
And it has nothing to do with trademarks or branding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they aren't suing them for copying anything.
And it has nothing to do with trademarks or branding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30129918</id>
	<title>I'm going to be a smartass and quote George Carlin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well first, I completely agree. If Verizons 3G capability is superior to ATTs they should spend the crazy amounts of money they are making on catching up, not on lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit!</p><p>
&nbsp; Isn't that the same kind of advertising done in laundry detergent commercials? This product does this better than that one.</p><p>I just finished George Carlins book brain droppings, and posting this is nothing personal to you, I wasnt aware  of it till I read this, and I got a laugh outta it so...</p><p>"The phrase sour grapes does not refer to jealousy or envy. Nor is it related to being a sore loser. It deals with the rationalization of failure to attain a desired end. In the original fable by Aesop, "The Fox and the Grapes," when the fox realizes he cannot leap high enough to reach the grapes, he rationalizes that even if he had gotten them, they would probably have been sour anyway. Rationalization. That's all sour grapes means. It doesn't deal with jealousy or sore losing. Yeah, I know you say, "Well, many people are using it that way, so the meaning is changing." And I say, "Well, many people are really f$&amp;*ing stupid, too, shall we just adopt their standards?"  -George Carlin</p><p>"You Never Know: Not true. Sometimes you know."<br>"One Thing Leads To Another: Not always. Sometimes one thing leads to the same thing. Ask an addict."<br>"You Cant Have It Both Ways: That depends on how intimately you know the other person. Maybe you can't have it both ways at once, but if you've got a little time, you can probably have it six or seven ways."<br>-George Carlin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well first , I completely agree .
If Verizons 3G capability is superior to ATTs they should spend the crazy amounts of money they are making on catching up , not on lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit !
  Is n't that the same kind of advertising done in laundry detergent commercials ?
This product does this better than that one.I just finished George Carlins book brain droppings , and posting this is nothing personal to you , I wasnt aware of it till I read this , and I got a laugh outta it so... " The phrase sour grapes does not refer to jealousy or envy .
Nor is it related to being a sore loser .
It deals with the rationalization of failure to attain a desired end .
In the original fable by Aesop , " The Fox and the Grapes , " when the fox realizes he can not leap high enough to reach the grapes , he rationalizes that even if he had gotten them , they would probably have been sour anyway .
Rationalization. That 's all sour grapes means .
It does n't deal with jealousy or sore losing .
Yeah , I know you say , " Well , many people are using it that way , so the meaning is changing .
" And I say , " Well , many people are really f $ &amp; * ing stupid , too , shall we just adopt their standards ?
" -George Carlin " You Never Know : Not true .
Sometimes you know .
" " One Thing Leads To Another : Not always .
Sometimes one thing leads to the same thing .
Ask an addict .
" " You Cant Have It Both Ways : That depends on how intimately you know the other person .
Maybe you ca n't have it both ways at once , but if you 've got a little time , you can probably have it six or seven ways .
" -George Carlin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well first, I completely agree.
If Verizons 3G capability is superior to ATTs they should spend the crazy amounts of money they are making on catching up, not on lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit!
  Isn't that the same kind of advertising done in laundry detergent commercials?
This product does this better than that one.I just finished George Carlins book brain droppings, and posting this is nothing personal to you, I wasnt aware  of it till I read this, and I got a laugh outta it so..."The phrase sour grapes does not refer to jealousy or envy.
Nor is it related to being a sore loser.
It deals with the rationalization of failure to attain a desired end.
In the original fable by Aesop, "The Fox and the Grapes," when the fox realizes he cannot leap high enough to reach the grapes, he rationalizes that even if he had gotten them, they would probably have been sour anyway.
Rationalization. That's all sour grapes means.
It doesn't deal with jealousy or sore losing.
Yeah, I know you say, "Well, many people are using it that way, so the meaning is changing.
" And I say, "Well, many people are really f$&amp;*ing stupid, too, shall we just adopt their standards?
"  -George Carlin"You Never Know: Not true.
Sometimes you know.
""One Thing Leads To Another: Not always.
Sometimes one thing leads to the same thing.
Ask an addict.
""You Cant Have It Both Ways: That depends on how intimately you know the other person.
Maybe you can't have it both ways at once, but if you've got a little time, you can probably have it six or seven ways.
"-George Carlin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30025116</id>
	<title>Yet Another Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Austin Milbarge</author>
	<datestamp>1257674820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got a great idea!  Instead of pulling out the lawyers with yet another hi-tech pussy lawsuit, how about pulling out the engineers instead and solving the REAL problem.  That is, fixing AT&amp;T's shitty cell service!  Wadaya think AT&amp;T?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a great idea !
Instead of pulling out the lawyers with yet another hi-tech pussy lawsuit , how about pulling out the engineers instead and solving the REAL problem .
That is , fixing AT&amp;T 's shitty cell service !
Wadaya think AT&amp;T ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a great idea!
Instead of pulling out the lawyers with yet another hi-tech pussy lawsuit, how about pulling out the engineers instead and solving the REAL problem.
That is, fixing AT&amp;T's shitty cell service!
Wadaya think AT&amp;T?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29984458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30012106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30003048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29993556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29988210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29984028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29990670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29996256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30001410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30129918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29989902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29998704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1428254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29996256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29990670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30003048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29998704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29993556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979060
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29986032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30012106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29982906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30129918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29988210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29989902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.30001410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29984458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29979910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29981668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29980458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1428254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29978744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29987688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29984028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1428254.29983378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
