<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_2121254</id>
	<title>Murdoch To Explore Blocking Google Searches</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257764880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>In another move sure to continue the certain doom looming over classic publications, Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8351331.stm">block much of Google's ability to scan and index his news sites</a>. <i>"Murdoch believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results. 'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,' Mr Murdoch told the TV channel. 'But we'll take that slowly.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>In another move sure to continue the certain doom looming over classic publications , Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to block much of Google 's ability to scan and index his news sites .
" Murdoch believes that search engines can not legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results .
'There 's a doctrine called " fair use , " which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether, ' Mr Murdoch told the TV channel .
'But we 'll take that slowly .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In another move sure to continue the certain doom looming over classic publications, Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to block much of Google's ability to scan and index his news sites.
"Murdoch believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results.
'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,' Mr Murdoch told the TV channel.
'But we'll take that slowly.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039948</id>
	<title>re:</title>
	<author>newtown1100</author>
	<datestamp>1257769440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called "FAIR use" for a reason. What the hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " FAIR use " for a reason .
What the hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "FAIR use" for a reason.
What the hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043632</id>
	<title>I'm surprised.</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1257850440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one tagged this one 'andnothingofvaluewaslost' yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one tagged this one 'andnothingofvaluewaslost ' yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one tagged this one 'andnothingofvaluewaslost' yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040314</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>SoCalChris</author>
	<datestamp>1257771180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course there are certain publications, like the WSJ that can pull it off, but most can not, and certainly not local newspapers.</p></div><p>On the contrary, I think that local papers are one of the few papers that could pull this off.
<br> <br>
For example, searching for news on the <a href="http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&amp;pz=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=us&amp;hl=en&amp;q=bozeman+gas+explosion" title="google.com">Bozeman, MT gas explosion</a> [google.com] yields results from a handful of local papers (This was a pretty major, although local event that happened earlier this year). There is absolutely no major news coverage, everything is from a handful of local news sites. If they all charged for access, you couldn't get this news online for free.
<br> <br>
However, something that a major site like Fox would cover will be available from hundreds of sites, at least one of which will be free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there are certain publications , like the WSJ that can pull it off , but most can not , and certainly not local newspapers.On the contrary , I think that local papers are one of the few papers that could pull this off .
For example , searching for news on the Bozeman , MT gas explosion [ google.com ] yields results from a handful of local papers ( This was a pretty major , although local event that happened earlier this year ) .
There is absolutely no major news coverage , everything is from a handful of local news sites .
If they all charged for access , you could n't get this news online for free .
However , something that a major site like Fox would cover will be available from hundreds of sites , at least one of which will be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there are certain publications, like the WSJ that can pull it off, but most can not, and certainly not local newspapers.On the contrary, I think that local papers are one of the few papers that could pull this off.
For example, searching for news on the Bozeman, MT gas explosion [google.com] yields results from a handful of local papers (This was a pretty major, although local event that happened earlier this year).
There is absolutely no major news coverage, everything is from a handful of local news sites.
If they all charged for access, you couldn't get this news online for free.
However, something that a major site like Fox would cover will be available from hundreds of sites, at least one of which will be free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043188</id>
	<title>Crackers to the rescue!</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1257843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.</p><p>It's time for the hackers/crackers of the world to unite and give Murdoch what he wants: A robots.txt that stops googlebot from indexing anything on News Corps servers.</p><p>There are several advantages to this:<br>1) Murdoch gets what he <b>says</b> he wants, free of charge<br>2) Google gets to show the world, just how effective they are at driving traffic<br>3) We, the people, get to pull a Nelson on Murdoch<br>4) The crackers/hackers who pull it off, get to show that they're doing good work</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , and I 'll say it again.It 's time for the hackers/crackers of the world to unite and give Murdoch what he wants : A robots.txt that stops googlebot from indexing anything on News Corps servers.There are several advantages to this : 1 ) Murdoch gets what he says he wants , free of charge2 ) Google gets to show the world , just how effective they are at driving traffic3 ) We , the people , get to pull a Nelson on Murdoch4 ) The crackers/hackers who pull it off , get to show that they 're doing good work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.It's time for the hackers/crackers of the world to unite and give Murdoch what he wants: A robots.txt that stops googlebot from indexing anything on News Corps servers.There are several advantages to this:1) Murdoch gets what he says he wants, free of charge2) Google gets to show the world, just how effective they are at driving traffic3) We, the people, get to pull a Nelson on Murdoch4) The crackers/hackers who pull it off, get to show that they're doing good work</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044094</id>
	<title>Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't they just add a Robots.txt into their web-root directory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't they just add a Robots.txt into their web-root directory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't they just add a Robots.txt into their web-root directory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040132</id>
	<title>Reaching Consumers</title>
	<author>BoRegardless</author>
	<datestamp>1257770280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, let see.</p><p>Consumer wants info on "The XYZ Co" and hits Google, Yahoo, Bing.</p><p>Content Providers want to push their advertisers so they get income,... so</p><p>Content Providers seek as many consumer eyes as possible,...while</p><p>Murdock figures out how to crash the eyes visiting his websites.</p><p>God, he must secretly want to retire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , let see.Consumer wants info on " The XYZ Co " and hits Google , Yahoo , Bing.Content Providers want to push their advertisers so they get income,... soContent Providers seek as many consumer eyes as possible,...whileMurdock figures out how to crash the eyes visiting his websites.God , he must secretly want to retire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, let see.Consumer wants info on "The XYZ Co" and hits Google, Yahoo, Bing.Content Providers want to push their advertisers so they get income,... soContent Providers seek as many consumer eyes as possible,...whileMurdock figures out how to crash the eyes visiting his websites.God, he must secretly want to retire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041796</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257782520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that Fox sued the cable networks when they didn't carry the fox news channel.  If google doesn't carry his news, then Murdoch can scream discrimination and sue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that Fox sued the cable networks when they did n't carry the fox news channel .
If google does n't carry his news , then Murdoch can scream discrimination and sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that Fox sued the cable networks when they didn't carry the fox news channel.
If google doesn't carry his news, then Murdoch can scream discrimination and sue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040348</id>
	<title>Merdoch (or Moloch?)</title>
	<author>wexsessa</author>
	<datestamp>1257771360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Merdoch (or his minons)
did you perhaps mean to type Moloch?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Merdoch ( or his minons ) did you perhaps mean to type Moloch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merdoch (or his minons)
did you perhaps mean to type Moloch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.

He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..</p></div><p>Of course. Merdoch (or his minons) know this. There are probably two things going on: A lame attempt to convince the public that he is being ripped off, and also he is almost certainly in discussions with Google about having Google pay for the content that Google clearly profits from. Neither will work out. And until web content of these "publications" provide a lot more value to the consumer, pay-for-access is a dead idea as well.
<br>
Of course there are certain publications, like the WSJ that can pull it off, but most can not, and certainly not local newspapers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here .
He 's not that stupid a person.. and there 's no way that someone has n't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..Of course .
Merdoch ( or his minons ) know this .
There are probably two things going on : A lame attempt to convince the public that he is being ripped off , and also he is almost certainly in discussions with Google about having Google pay for the content that Google clearly profits from .
Neither will work out .
And until web content of these " publications " provide a lot more value to the consumer , pay-for-access is a dead idea as well .
Of course there are certain publications , like the WSJ that can pull it off , but most can not , and certainly not local newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.
He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..Of course.
Merdoch (or his minons) know this.
There are probably two things going on: A lame attempt to convince the public that he is being ripped off, and also he is almost certainly in discussions with Google about having Google pay for the content that Google clearly profits from.
Neither will work out.
And until web content of these "publications" provide a lot more value to the consumer, pay-for-access is a dead idea as well.
Of course there are certain publications, like the WSJ that can pull it off, but most can not, and certainly not local newspapers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041826</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even Fox is saying <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt" title="foxnews.com" rel="nofollow">robots.txt</a> [foxnews.com]:</p><p>User-agent: *<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/printer\_friendly\_story<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/projects/livestream<br>#<br>User-agent: gsa-crawler<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/printer\_friendly\_story<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/google\_search\_index.xml<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/google\_news\_index.xml<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/*.xml.gz<br>#<br>Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google\_search\_index.xml<br>Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Fox is saying robots.txt [ foxnews.com ] : User-agent : * Disallow : /printer \ _friendly \ _storyDisallow : /projects/livestream # User-agent : gsa-crawlerAllow : /printer \ _friendly \ _storyAllow : /google \ _search \ _index.xmlAllow : /google \ _news \ _index.xmlAllow : / * .xml.gz # Sitemap : http : //www.foxnews.com/google \ _search \ _index.xmlSitemap : http : //www.foxnews.com/google \ _news \ _index.xml</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Fox is saying robots.txt [foxnews.com]:User-agent: *Disallow: /printer\_friendly\_storyDisallow: /projects/livestream#User-agent: gsa-crawlerAllow: /printer\_friendly\_storyAllow: /google\_search\_index.xmlAllow: /google\_news\_index.xmlAllow: /*.xml.gz#Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google\_search\_index.xmlSitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039770</id>
	<title>Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I genius?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I genius ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I genius?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040434</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>un1xl0ser</author>
	<datestamp>1257771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.</p></div><p>Riiighhht. When I want news done properly, I'll <b>PAY</b> FoxNews to do it properly. Just think about that for a second. The only reason anyone should be remotely concerned about this is because he now controls the WSJ.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then <b>not</b> clicked the website?</p></div><p>No, not for news. Try searching for "2009 election results" or "apple earnings 2009" and see if you can make sense of it (although "who beat rihanna" actually kind of worked). Nobody can use that crap. Even Google News doesn't provide usable news in their largest digest. FoxNews.com charging would be fun to watch, glad to see them go first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news , come to us and do it properly.Riiighhht .
When I want news done properly , I 'll PAY FoxNews to do it properly .
Just think about that for a second .
The only reason anyone should be remotely concerned about this is because he now controls the WSJ.Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ? No , not for news .
Try searching for " 2009 election results " or " apple earnings 2009 " and see if you can make sense of it ( although " who beat rihanna " actually kind of worked ) .
Nobody can use that crap .
Even Google News does n't provide usable news in their largest digest .
FoxNews.com charging would be fun to watch , glad to see them go first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.Riiighhht.
When I want news done properly, I'll PAY FoxNews to do it properly.
Just think about that for a second.
The only reason anyone should be remotely concerned about this is because he now controls the WSJ.Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?No, not for news.
Try searching for "2009 election results" or "apple earnings 2009" and see if you can make sense of it (although "who beat rihanna" actually kind of worked).
Nobody can use that crap.
Even Google News doesn't provide usable news in their largest digest.
FoxNews.com charging would be fun to watch, glad to see them go first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042840</id>
	<title>Re:You guys are smarter than this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do I pay Google to not include anything from Mad Dog Murdoch's empire?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I pay Google to not include anything from Mad Dog Murdoch 's empire ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I pay Google to not include anything from Mad Dog Murdoch's empire?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040732</id>
	<title>I fully support Mr Murdoch</title>
	<author>nokiator</author>
	<datestamp>1257773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google and all other search engines should immediately start excluding links to Murdoch's web sites from all of their search results. Mr Murdoch should look into other ways of increasing his profits form the content his publications are providing. He should go one step further and make Fox News Channel a premium cable channel that costs $49.95/month...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and all other search engines should immediately start excluding links to Murdoch 's web sites from all of their search results .
Mr Murdoch should look into other ways of increasing his profits form the content his publications are providing .
He should go one step further and make Fox News Channel a premium cable channel that costs $ 49.95/month.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and all other search engines should immediately start excluding links to Murdoch's web sites from all of their search results.
Mr Murdoch should look into other ways of increasing his profits form the content his publications are providing.
He should go one step further and make Fox News Channel a premium cable channel that costs $49.95/month...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040088</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>\_KiTA\_</author>
	<datestamp>1257770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a god damned idiot.  Or an attention whore.  Or both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a god damned idiot .
Or an attention whore .
Or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a god damned idiot.
Or an attention whore.
Or both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039872</id>
	<title>No more FoxNews in my search results!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is awesome! Now I don't have to sort through all the FoxNews crap in search results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is awesome !
Now I do n't have to sort through all the FoxNews crap in search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is awesome!
Now I don't have to sort through all the FoxNews crap in search results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040104</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1257770160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you, and what's interesting is that the article didn't make any attempt to contextualize this in terms of "HOW" he will go about blocking Google indexing. Then again, in light of this being a political move, and the fact that Murdoch owns "Sky News", the company to whom he confessed this tidbit, it's not surprising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , and what 's interesting is that the article did n't make any attempt to contextualize this in terms of " HOW " he will go about blocking Google indexing .
Then again , in light of this being a political move , and the fact that Murdoch owns " Sky News " , the company to whom he confessed this tidbit , it 's not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, and what's interesting is that the article didn't make any attempt to contextualize this in terms of "HOW" he will go about blocking Google indexing.
Then again, in light of this being a political move, and the fact that Murdoch owns "Sky News", the company to whom he confessed this tidbit, it's not surprising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042850</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats just it, he does... and he thinks he can win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats just it , he does... and he thinks he can win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats just it, he does... and he thinks he can win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040276</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1257771000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and certainly not local newspapers.</p></div><p>But most papers are local and it is in that domain where content is most valuable. Say you want to get data on past car accidents in your street so you can campaign for the local council to spend money on improvements. Paying for records from a local news source would be a good way to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and certainly not local newspapers.But most papers are local and it is in that domain where content is most valuable .
Say you want to get data on past car accidents in your street so you can campaign for the local council to spend money on improvements .
Paying for records from a local news source would be a good way to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and certainly not local newspapers.But most papers are local and it is in that domain where content is most valuable.
Say you want to get data on past car accidents in your street so you can campaign for the local council to spend money on improvements.
Paying for records from a local news source would be a good way to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042452</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly is it suicidal to discontinue a service (free news on the internet) that does not make a profit?</p><p>Free, ad-supported news doesn't pay its way. Never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly is it suicidal to discontinue a service ( free news on the internet ) that does not make a profit ? Free , ad-supported news does n't pay its way .
Never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly is it suicidal to discontinue a service (free news on the internet) that does not make a profit?Free, ad-supported news doesn't pay its way.
Never will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041662</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1257781020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.</p></div><p>The problem is more about COMPETITION that is promoted by places like Google indexing sites. You see, if a gatherer of news links to five different articles on a similar subject, you can likely quickly see who is doing the better job of journalism. If you on the other hand have paid services and only see one version of an article, then you aren't drawn away from it (and the advertising around it). The reason the web is so good at providing stories that are well written is that it makes it so easy to search through twenty articles on one subject till you find the quality one. You can't pick up a newspaper (or single site for that matter) and find twenty articles about the same story written by different people. If you could, chances are you would find one that's better than the others. This is effectively what the web allows you to do, and what Murdoch is shitscared of.<br> <br>

The internet makes it possible for him to be compared, on a level playing field and in bright lights to his competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line , because Google would simply index those remaining free providers , which often provide a more complete story anyway.The problem is more about COMPETITION that is promoted by places like Google indexing sites .
You see , if a gatherer of news links to five different articles on a similar subject , you can likely quickly see who is doing the better job of journalism .
If you on the other hand have paid services and only see one version of an article , then you are n't drawn away from it ( and the advertising around it ) .
The reason the web is so good at providing stories that are well written is that it makes it so easy to search through twenty articles on one subject till you find the quality one .
You ca n't pick up a newspaper ( or single site for that matter ) and find twenty articles about the same story written by different people .
If you could , chances are you would find one that 's better than the others .
This is effectively what the web allows you to do , and what Murdoch is shitscared of .
The internet makes it possible for him to be compared , on a level playing field and in bright lights to his competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.The problem is more about COMPETITION that is promoted by places like Google indexing sites.
You see, if a gatherer of news links to five different articles on a similar subject, you can likely quickly see who is doing the better job of journalism.
If you on the other hand have paid services and only see one version of an article, then you aren't drawn away from it (and the advertising around it).
The reason the web is so good at providing stories that are well written is that it makes it so easy to search through twenty articles on one subject till you find the quality one.
You can't pick up a newspaper (or single site for that matter) and find twenty articles about the same story written by different people.
If you could, chances are you would find one that's better than the others.
This is effectively what the web allows you to do, and what Murdoch is shitscared of.
The internet makes it possible for him to be compared, on a level playing field and in bright lights to his competition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040776</id>
	<title>it is MUCH worse than that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257773820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's human readable-you won't believe this shit....<br><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt</a> [foxnews.com]</p><p>"User-agent: *<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/printer\_friendly\_story<br>Disallow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/projects/livestream<br>#<br>User-agent: gsa-crawler<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/printer\_friendly\_story<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/google\_search\_index.xml<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/google\_news\_index.xml<br>Allow:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/*.xml.gz<br>#<br>Sitemap: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/google\_search\_index.xml" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/google\_search\_index.xml</a> [foxnews.com]<br>Sitemap: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml</a> [foxnews.com]"</p><p>explicit allows.....</p><p>I often find disallows to be the neatest part of some websites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's human readable-you wo n't believe this shit....http : //www.foxnews.com/robots.txt [ foxnews.com ] " User-agent : * Disallow : /printer \ _friendly \ _storyDisallow : /projects/livestream # User-agent : gsa-crawlerAllow : /printer \ _friendly \ _storyAllow : /google \ _search \ _index.xmlAllow : /google \ _news \ _index.xmlAllow : / * .xml.gz # Sitemap : http : //www.foxnews.com/google \ _search \ _index.xml [ foxnews.com ] Sitemap : http : //www.foxnews.com/google \ _news \ _index.xml [ foxnews.com ] " explicit allows.....I often find disallows to be the neatest part of some websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's human readable-you won't believe this shit....http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt [foxnews.com]"User-agent: *Disallow: /printer\_friendly\_storyDisallow: /projects/livestream#User-agent: gsa-crawlerAllow: /printer\_friendly\_storyAllow: /google\_search\_index.xmlAllow: /google\_news\_index.xmlAllow: /*.xml.gz#Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google\_search\_index.xml [foxnews.com]Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml [foxnews.com]"explicit allows.....I often find disallows to be the neatest part of some websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916</id>
	<title>You guys are smarter than this</title>
	<author>tkrotchko</author>
	<datestamp>1257769320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's asking Google to pay him to index his site.</p><p>Parse it out...</p><p>1) They're stealing his headlines<br>2) Google may or may not have the right to search<br>3) We'll attack their right to search<br>4) So if they know what's good for them, pay us to be included in google searches</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's asking Google to pay him to index his site.Parse it out...1 ) They 're stealing his headlines2 ) Google may or may not have the right to search3 ) We 'll attack their right to search4 ) So if they know what 's good for them , pay us to be included in google searches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's asking Google to pay him to index his site.Parse it out...1) They're stealing his headlines2) Google may or may not have the right to search3) We'll attack their right to search4) So if they know what's good for them, pay us to be included in google searches</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039902</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No more Faux news in my google news page! <br> <br>&lt;speedracer&gt;buh bye little turd!&lt;/speedracer&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>No more Faux news in my google news page !
buh bye little turd !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more Faux news in my google news page!
buh bye little turd!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043638</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.</p><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then <b>not</b> clicked the website?</p></div><p>Yes, i do this when the answer is simple, this also makes it easier to verify the answer from different sources, when the same answer is in the result text from different sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news , come to us and do it properly.Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ? Yes , i do this when the answer is simple , this also makes it easier to verify the answer from different sources , when the same answer is in the result text from different sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?Yes, i do this when the answer is simple, this also makes it easier to verify the answer from different sources, when the same answer is in the result text from different sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052408</id>
	<title>Tell murdoch to</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257851520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shove his content up his ass. world is full of content. i wont lose anything by not using his sites. audieu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>shove his content up his ass .
world is full of content .
i wont lose anything by not using his sites .
audieu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shove his content up his ass.
world is full of content.
i wont lose anything by not using his sites.
audieu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049412</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I love this idea!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I love this idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I love this idea!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041380</id>
	<title>sell:shoes,handbags,T-shirt,Jeans,sunglass</title>
	<author>coolforsale2009</author>
	<datestamp>1257778680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] nike air max jordan shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday , this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift , that is , gift , our web site is http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] nike air max jordan shoes , coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags , Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] nike air max jordan shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30059706</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1257088740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, without the Fair Use exception there would be no such thing as a search engine.</p><p>Be careful what you ask for, Mr. Murdoch.  You might get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , without the Fair Use exception there would be no such thing as a search engine.Be careful what you ask for , Mr. Murdoch. You might get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, without the Fair Use exception there would be no such thing as a search engine.Be careful what you ask for, Mr. Murdoch.  You might get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040138</id>
	<title>WHo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we all thought that Bill Gates was the evil emperor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we all thought that Bill Gates was the evil emperor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we all thought that Bill Gates was the evil emperor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040124</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>N7DR</author>
	<datestamp>1257770160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject. Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of "google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \_completely\_ "block" us (and many others) from "stealing" their content by putting a simple text file on their site.</p></div><p>The BBC did have an interview with someone from google on this issue on the World Service a couple of days ago. The google spokesman did make the point (without going into the details of robots.txt) that Mr. Murdoch is completely at liberty to stop Google from indexing his sites. Actually, I got the distinct impression that the google person thought that this was all somewhat of an unbelievable joke, since the solution was so simple, and rested entirely in Mr. Murdoch's hands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject .
Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of " google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \ _completely \ _ " block " us ( and many others ) from " stealing " their content by putting a simple text file on their site.The BBC did have an interview with someone from google on this issue on the World Service a couple of days ago .
The google spokesman did make the point ( without going into the details of robots.txt ) that Mr. Murdoch is completely at liberty to stop Google from indexing his sites .
Actually , I got the distinct impression that the google person thought that this was all somewhat of an unbelievable joke , since the solution was so simple , and rested entirely in Mr. Murdoch 's hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject.
Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of "google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \_completely\_ "block" us (and many others) from "stealing" their content by putting a simple text file on their site.The BBC did have an interview with someone from google on this issue on the World Service a couple of days ago.
The google spokesman did make the point (without going into the details of robots.txt) that Mr. Murdoch is completely at liberty to stop Google from indexing his sites.
Actually, I got the distinct impression that the google person thought that this was all somewhat of an unbelievable joke, since the solution was so simple, and rested entirely in Mr. Murdoch's hands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052006</id>
	<title>Give him what he's wishing for ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google ( and Yahoo et al ) all stopped indexing all his sites and purged their caches of references to his sites, he'd soon see how little companies would pay him to advertise to nobody on his sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google ( and Yahoo et al ) all stopped indexing all his sites and purged their caches of references to his sites , he 'd soon see how little companies would pay him to advertise to nobody on his sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google ( and Yahoo et al ) all stopped indexing all his sites and purged their caches of references to his sites, he'd soon see how little companies would pay him to advertise to nobody on his sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041334</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1257778260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop, right now, and live happily ever after.  He easily works 60 hours a week at the office, and probably more if he takes anything home with him.  We've talked about the quandary you just presented.</p><p>His answer as to why he continues to build and expand:  "Because I really enjoy it."  And I don't think there's much more to be said about it, except that some folks like playing football, or billiards.  Some folks paint pictures for fun.  And some folks build empires.  It's like playing Risk, but with real assets.</p></div><p>I know I'm replying to you a second time, but I wanted to add something.
<br> <br>
I guess I am one of those "oddballs" (at least in this society it would seem so) because I value quality time with people I love and care about much more than any game of Risk that I don't actually need to play.  What follows is a rhetorical question.  If your boss has a family, how often does he say "I just don't have the time" to his wife and children in order to put in those 60+ hours a week, or if he doesn't have his own family, how many people hear that from him who still care about him very much?
<br> <br>
To me this is not about whether working a job that you enjoy has merit.  Certainly it does.  It's about priorities and whether you have any that mean more to you.  It's about the fact that there are only so many hours in one day and only so many days in one lifetime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop , right now , and live happily ever after .
He easily works 60 hours a week at the office , and probably more if he takes anything home with him .
We 've talked about the quandary you just presented.His answer as to why he continues to build and expand : " Because I really enjoy it .
" And I do n't think there 's much more to be said about it , except that some folks like playing football , or billiards .
Some folks paint pictures for fun .
And some folks build empires .
It 's like playing Risk , but with real assets.I know I 'm replying to you a second time , but I wanted to add something .
I guess I am one of those " oddballs " ( at least in this society it would seem so ) because I value quality time with people I love and care about much more than any game of Risk that I do n't actually need to play .
What follows is a rhetorical question .
If your boss has a family , how often does he say " I just do n't have the time " to his wife and children in order to put in those 60 + hours a week , or if he does n't have his own family , how many people hear that from him who still care about him very much ?
To me this is not about whether working a job that you enjoy has merit .
Certainly it does .
It 's about priorities and whether you have any that mean more to you .
It 's about the fact that there are only so many hours in one day and only so many days in one lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop, right now, and live happily ever after.
He easily works 60 hours a week at the office, and probably more if he takes anything home with him.
We've talked about the quandary you just presented.His answer as to why he continues to build and expand:  "Because I really enjoy it.
"  And I don't think there's much more to be said about it, except that some folks like playing football, or billiards.
Some folks paint pictures for fun.
And some folks build empires.
It's like playing Risk, but with real assets.I know I'm replying to you a second time, but I wanted to add something.
I guess I am one of those "oddballs" (at least in this society it would seem so) because I value quality time with people I love and care about much more than any game of Risk that I don't actually need to play.
What follows is a rhetorical question.
If your boss has a family, how often does he say "I just don't have the time" to his wife and children in order to put in those 60+ hours a week, or if he doesn't have his own family, how many people hear that from him who still care about him very much?
To me this is not about whether working a job that you enjoy has merit.
Certainly it does.
It's about priorities and whether you have any that mean more to you.
It's about the fact that there are only so many hours in one day and only so many days in one lifetime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042300</id>
	<title>Mod this as blatantly obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert Murdoch is a douchebag, plain and simple.</p><p>Fox News is a JOKE as a news station, and that is saying a lot especially here in the US. In fact, the only thing more stupid than Fox News is its audience. Germans who were alive during the rise of the Nazi party are probably saying "Damn! That Fox News sure knows how to fling the propaganda!"</p><p>Fox News is a one sided, boneheaded, take-no-prisoners bozonic turd that is polished using the finest paid-for "news correspondents" who are willing to report what Rupert M's lackeys say in spite of these things we call facts and objectivity. In fact, anyone working for Fox News who considers themselves a journalist is delusional and should seek therapy.</p><p>Rupert should just sit back and enjoy the fact that he has money and not worry about getting revenge on those who picked on him when he was a kid. In fact, he can actually afford some decent health insurance and can use it to get the mental treatment that he rightly deserves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch is a douchebag , plain and simple.Fox News is a JOKE as a news station , and that is saying a lot especially here in the US .
In fact , the only thing more stupid than Fox News is its audience .
Germans who were alive during the rise of the Nazi party are probably saying " Damn !
That Fox News sure knows how to fling the propaganda !
" Fox News is a one sided , boneheaded , take-no-prisoners bozonic turd that is polished using the finest paid-for " news correspondents " who are willing to report what Rupert M 's lackeys say in spite of these things we call facts and objectivity .
In fact , anyone working for Fox News who considers themselves a journalist is delusional and should seek therapy.Rupert should just sit back and enjoy the fact that he has money and not worry about getting revenge on those who picked on him when he was a kid .
In fact , he can actually afford some decent health insurance and can use it to get the mental treatment that he rightly deserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch is a douchebag, plain and simple.Fox News is a JOKE as a news station, and that is saying a lot especially here in the US.
In fact, the only thing more stupid than Fox News is its audience.
Germans who were alive during the rise of the Nazi party are probably saying "Damn!
That Fox News sure knows how to fling the propaganda!
"Fox News is a one sided, boneheaded, take-no-prisoners bozonic turd that is polished using the finest paid-for "news correspondents" who are willing to report what Rupert M's lackeys say in spite of these things we call facts and objectivity.
In fact, anyone working for Fox News who considers themselves a journalist is delusional and should seek therapy.Rupert should just sit back and enjoy the fact that he has money and not worry about getting revenge on those who picked on him when he was a kid.
In fact, he can actually afford some decent health insurance and can use it to get the mental treatment that he rightly deserves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040180</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1257770520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe 1\% of searches i do, probably even less than that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe 1 \ % of searches i do , probably even less than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe 1\% of searches i do, probably even less than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30047586</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that happens sometimes.  However, most often you click the link and read the entire article.  The other posts are right, he is just shooting himself.  Has he lost his mind.  Stopping searches will limit the traffic the search engines are sending his way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that happens sometimes .
However , most often you click the link and read the entire article .
The other posts are right , he is just shooting himself .
Has he lost his mind .
Stopping searches will limit the traffic the search engines are sending his way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that happens sometimes.
However, most often you click the link and read the entire article.
The other posts are right, he is just shooting himself.
Has he lost his mind.
Stopping searches will limit the traffic the search engines are sending his way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041164</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>netsharc</author>
	<datestamp>1257776640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, but how many of them are willing to pay? Well, enough I guess. As for the rest, someone could infiltrate the tea-bagging community and make them go to Fox's HQ and protest Rupert's decision. Imagine that, the tea-baggers turning against the entity that created them.</p><p>or just make a non-pay www.f0xnews.com (notice the zero), and slowly subvert their minds from right-wing propaganda...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , but how many of them are willing to pay ?
Well , enough I guess .
As for the rest , someone could infiltrate the tea-bagging community and make them go to Fox 's HQ and protest Rupert 's decision .
Imagine that , the tea-baggers turning against the entity that created them.or just make a non-pay www.f0xnews.com ( notice the zero ) , and slowly subvert their minds from right-wing propaganda.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, but how many of them are willing to pay?
Well, enough I guess.
As for the rest, someone could infiltrate the tea-bagging community and make them go to Fox's HQ and protest Rupert's decision.
Imagine that, the tea-baggers turning against the entity that created them.or just make a non-pay www.f0xnews.com (notice the zero), and slowly subvert their minds from right-wing propaganda...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</id>
	<title>This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anrego</author>
	<datestamp>1257768600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.</p><p>He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..</p><p>How has this not happened? Even mainstream media tends to at least try to get a statement from both sides.</p><p>I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject. Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of "google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \_completely\_ "block" us (and many others) from "stealing" their content by putting a simple text file on their site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.He 's not that stupid a person.. and there 's no way that someone has n't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..How has this not happened ?
Even mainstream media tends to at least try to get a statement from both sides.I 'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject .
Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of " google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \ _completely \ _ " block " us ( and many others ) from " stealing " their content by putting a simple text file on their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..How has this not happened?
Even mainstream media tends to at least try to get a statement from both sides.I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject.
Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of "google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \_completely\_ "block" us (and many others) from "stealing" their content by putting a simple text file on their site.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041150</id>
	<title>The reason he wants to do this</title>
	<author>CaroKann</author>
	<datestamp>1257776580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/News-Corp-Boss-Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Online-Newspaper-Pages-Will-Be-Invisible-To-Google-Users/Article/200911215446006?lpos=Business\_First\_Home\_Article\_Teaser\_Region\_7&amp;lid=ARTICLE\_15446006\_News\_Corp\_Boss\_Rupert\_Murdoch\_Says\_Online\_Newspaper\_Pages\_Will\_Be\_Invisible\_To\_Google\_Users" title="sky.com">another article</a> [sky.com] that goes into a little more detail.
<br> <br>
The crux of the matter seems to be the fact "readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers."  Apparently advertisers want to know some demographic details about the people who read the articles, details that are available with paying subscribers.  "Who knows who they are or where they are. They don't suddenly become loyal readers of our content." states Mr. Murdoch of Google news click-throughs.
<br> <br>
Mr. Murdoch also claims that there is simply not enough advertising money in the world to make all news websites profitable.  He realises that the number of visitors will decrease, but states that he would prefer to have fewer readers who pay to many readers who don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is another article [ sky.com ] that goes into a little more detail .
The crux of the matter seems to be the fact " readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers .
" Apparently advertisers want to know some demographic details about the people who read the articles , details that are available with paying subscribers .
" Who knows who they are or where they are .
They do n't suddenly become loyal readers of our content .
" states Mr. Murdoch of Google news click-throughs .
Mr. Murdoch also claims that there is simply not enough advertising money in the world to make all news websites profitable .
He realises that the number of visitors will decrease , but states that he would prefer to have fewer readers who pay to many readers who do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is another article [sky.com] that goes into a little more detail.
The crux of the matter seems to be the fact "readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers.
"  Apparently advertisers want to know some demographic details about the people who read the articles, details that are available with paying subscribers.
"Who knows who they are or where they are.
They don't suddenly become loyal readers of our content.
" states Mr. Murdoch of Google news click-throughs.
Mr. Murdoch also claims that there is simply not enough advertising money in the world to make all news websites profitable.
He realises that the number of visitors will decrease, but states that he would prefer to have fewer readers who pay to many readers who don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049322</id>
	<title>sweet!</title>
	<author>pestilence669</author>
	<datestamp>1257882360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I don't have to see Fox news headlines anywhere online!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I do n't have to see Fox news headlines anywhere online !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I don't have to see Fox news headlines anywhere online!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041188</id>
	<title>Attempting to block?</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1257776820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you want about Google, but they at least seem to honor robots.txt. Is this technology not available to Mr. Murdoch's websites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you want about Google , but they at least seem to honor robots.txt .
Is this technology not available to Mr. Murdoch 's websites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you want about Google, but they at least seem to honor robots.txt.
Is this technology not available to Mr. Murdoch's websites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1257772500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial (to Murdoch) terms.
I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications' owners to do the same thing.

They don't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going.  He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).
</p><p>
It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).  If Rupert doesn't have a coalition going, there's only so much posturing he can do before actually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting\_off\_the\_nose\_to\_spite\_the\_face" title="wikipedia.org">cutting off his nose to spite his face</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div><p>Here's what I don't understand about people like Murdoch.  He's 78 years old.  I don't like him one bit, but I don't wish him ill either (for that would reflect badly on me while saying nothing about him).  I hope he lives well into old age (and uses that time to reconsider his priorities -- more on that later).  But realistically, he is a mortal being just like me and everyone else.
<br> <br>
I'll speak only for myself here.  If I were 78 years old, how much time would I have left on the planet?  Two or three years?  Five?  Ten?  Wouldn't I be lucky to have that much, since all of those figures exceed the average life expectancy of a male in the USA?  If I am that old and already have enough money to guarantee not only my financial security but also that of any children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, what would be the point of continuing to try to build and maintain a media empire with increasingly aggressive tactics?  Every minute I spent doing that would be time I wouldn't get to spend with my family, my friends, appreciating nature and the world around me, and maybe even trying to use my vast resources to make the world a slightly better place.  It would be time that I would never get back once it has come and gone.
<br> <br>
I really wonder what drives people like this.  I want to know what they think they are accomplishing that's so important to them.  It's not even a religious cause or a humanitarian effort or anything like that where this kind of devotion is not so unusual.  It's just business and he has already acquired a vast personal fortune that is the dream of businessmen everywhere.  He has already succeeded many times over yet he continues to play the game.  Something here just doesn't add up.  How do you explain this kind of dedication?  Because as far as I can tell, it's quite pathological though even that doesn't really explain it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial ( to Murdoch ) terms .
I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications ' owners to do the same thing .
They do n't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going .
He can block WSJ.com , claim some victory , show it as a case model , and hope others buy his idea ( WSJ does not need Google , but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites ) .
It 's not politics , it 's purely ( an attempt to save a failed ) business ( model ) .
If Rupert does n't have a coalition going , there 's only so much posturing he can do before actually cutting off his nose to spite his face [ wikipedia.org ] .Here 's what I do n't understand about people like Murdoch .
He 's 78 years old .
I do n't like him one bit , but I do n't wish him ill either ( for that would reflect badly on me while saying nothing about him ) .
I hope he lives well into old age ( and uses that time to reconsider his priorities -- more on that later ) .
But realistically , he is a mortal being just like me and everyone else .
I 'll speak only for myself here .
If I were 78 years old , how much time would I have left on the planet ?
Two or three years ?
Five ? Ten ?
Would n't I be lucky to have that much , since all of those figures exceed the average life expectancy of a male in the USA ?
If I am that old and already have enough money to guarantee not only my financial security but also that of any children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren , what would be the point of continuing to try to build and maintain a media empire with increasingly aggressive tactics ?
Every minute I spent doing that would be time I would n't get to spend with my family , my friends , appreciating nature and the world around me , and maybe even trying to use my vast resources to make the world a slightly better place .
It would be time that I would never get back once it has come and gone .
I really wonder what drives people like this .
I want to know what they think they are accomplishing that 's so important to them .
It 's not even a religious cause or a humanitarian effort or anything like that where this kind of devotion is not so unusual .
It 's just business and he has already acquired a vast personal fortune that is the dream of businessmen everywhere .
He has already succeeded many times over yet he continues to play the game .
Something here just does n't add up .
How do you explain this kind of dedication ?
Because as far as I can tell , it 's quite pathological though even that does n't really explain it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial (to Murdoch) terms.
I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications' owners to do the same thing.
They don't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going.
He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).
It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).
If Rupert doesn't have a coalition going, there's only so much posturing he can do before actually cutting off his nose to spite his face [wikipedia.org].Here's what I don't understand about people like Murdoch.
He's 78 years old.
I don't like him one bit, but I don't wish him ill either (for that would reflect badly on me while saying nothing about him).
I hope he lives well into old age (and uses that time to reconsider his priorities -- more on that later).
But realistically, he is a mortal being just like me and everyone else.
I'll speak only for myself here.
If I were 78 years old, how much time would I have left on the planet?
Two or three years?
Five?  Ten?
Wouldn't I be lucky to have that much, since all of those figures exceed the average life expectancy of a male in the USA?
If I am that old and already have enough money to guarantee not only my financial security but also that of any children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, what would be the point of continuing to try to build and maintain a media empire with increasingly aggressive tactics?
Every minute I spent doing that would be time I wouldn't get to spend with my family, my friends, appreciating nature and the world around me, and maybe even trying to use my vast resources to make the world a slightly better place.
It would be time that I would never get back once it has come and gone.
I really wonder what drives people like this.
I want to know what they think they are accomplishing that's so important to them.
It's not even a religious cause or a humanitarian effort or anything like that where this kind of devotion is not so unusual.
It's just business and he has already acquired a vast personal fortune that is the dream of businessmen everywhere.
He has already succeeded many times over yet he continues to play the game.
Something here just doesn't add up.
How do you explain this kind of dedication?
Because as far as I can tell, it's quite pathological though even that doesn't really explain it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041624</id>
	<title>News Creation</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1257780720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is clearly a slow news day when Rupert Murdoch himself has to step up to make a headline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clearly a slow news day when Rupert Murdoch himself has to step up to make a headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clearly a slow news day when Rupert Murdoch himself has to step up to make a headline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042836</id>
	<title>The instant this happens</title>
	<author>dilvish\_the\_damned</author>
	<datestamp>1257795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the irrelevance will be complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the irrelevance will be complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the irrelevance will be complete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google have mentioned "robots.txt" pretty much every time Murdoch has spoken about this idea or anyone has cared to ask them for a comment.  They've done so that many times in fact that I expect they've resorted to sending sample "robots.txt" files over to News Corp. just to get them to shut up and leave them alone and have possibly even considered proactively bypassing News Corp's sites.  Personally, I think the endless rhetoric from Murdoch and complete lack of action on behalf of News Corp. is because either this boils down to a serious difference of opinion between Murdoch and a good chunk of his senior staff or they have their doubts and don't want to go it alone just in case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google have mentioned " robots.txt " pretty much every time Murdoch has spoken about this idea or anyone has cared to ask them for a comment .
They 've done so that many times in fact that I expect they 've resorted to sending sample " robots.txt " files over to News Corp. just to get them to shut up and leave them alone and have possibly even considered proactively bypassing News Corp 's sites .
Personally , I think the endless rhetoric from Murdoch and complete lack of action on behalf of News Corp. is because either this boils down to a serious difference of opinion between Murdoch and a good chunk of his senior staff or they have their doubts and do n't want to go it alone just in case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google have mentioned "robots.txt" pretty much every time Murdoch has spoken about this idea or anyone has cared to ask them for a comment.
They've done so that many times in fact that I expect they've resorted to sending sample "robots.txt" files over to News Corp. just to get them to shut up and leave them alone and have possibly even considered proactively bypassing News Corp's sites.
Personally, I think the endless rhetoric from Murdoch and complete lack of action on behalf of News Corp. is because either this boils down to a serious difference of opinion between Murdoch and a good chunk of his senior staff or they have their doubts and don't want to go it alone just in case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040642</id>
	<title>Next: Murdoch to explore...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257773040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...randomly re-registering his sites' names so that no one can read them. Ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...randomly re-registering his sites ' names so that no one can read them .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...randomly re-registering his sites' names so that no one can read them.
Ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042516</id>
	<title>Re:Massive engineering effort required!</title>
	<author>jackb\_guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257790740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing his point...</p><p>Why does the content owner have to block Google?   Google has to ask permission to index books, why not webpages?</p><p>This is the edge that missing in the conversation.</p><p>robots.txt does not block Google or anyone else, it just a form of a "site use contract" that had come into play help manage the relationship between two computers.  Reading it still consumes resources (yes very little), why should the contain owner pay for something he does not want to happen in the first place?</p><p>Yes, there is more here, like he really would like a cut of Goggles pie.  But the question of "Why must I pay to prevent you from using what is mine?", will also need to answered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing his point...Why does the content owner have to block Google ?
Google has to ask permission to index books , why not webpages ? This is the edge that missing in the conversation.robots.txt does not block Google or anyone else , it just a form of a " site use contract " that had come into play help manage the relationship between two computers .
Reading it still consumes resources ( yes very little ) , why should the contain owner pay for something he does not want to happen in the first place ? Yes , there is more here , like he really would like a cut of Goggles pie .
But the question of " Why must I pay to prevent you from using what is mine ?
" , will also need to answered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing his point...Why does the content owner have to block Google?
Google has to ask permission to index books, why not webpages?This is the edge that missing in the conversation.robots.txt does not block Google or anyone else, it just a form of a "site use contract" that had come into play help manage the relationship between two computers.
Reading it still consumes resources (yes very little), why should the contain owner pay for something he does not want to happen in the first place?Yes, there is more here, like he really would like a cut of Goggles pie.
But the question of "Why must I pay to prevent you from using what is mine?
", will also need to answered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041792</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1257782460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually, no. Not unless I'm looking for a physics formula or something. Otherwise I want to know the \_context\_ of the statement. I want to know where the information is coming from. For example, there's this really good quote from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) stating that before the Harrison Anti-drug act, 1.3\% of the population was addicted to drugs. Before the War on Drugs, 1.3\% of the population was addicted to drugs. And today, 1.3\% of the population is addicted to drugs. I've been looking for the real source of that for days, still with no luck, and I refuse to use it until I find one. Not because I don't trust LEAP, but simply because they're hardly an unbiased source. I've finally decided to try to contact them about it, and am awaiting a reply. But seriously, I know a \_lot\_ of people will use facts without bothering to check out anything about it, but personally I refuse to state something as a fact until I know exactly where it's coming from and in what context. Otherwise you're just spreading rumors - and from the small blurb that Google gives you, that's all you can really do. Until google is able to trace the source of whatever it's telling you, those blurbs are only useful for determining which link to click - as they are intended.</p><p>Plus, have you ever really searched something with 4 or 5 terms? Google tries to show you the context of as many terms as possible in that 2 or 3 line blurb, so you end up getting 4 or 5 words around each one. Pretty much useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually , no .
Not unless I 'm looking for a physics formula or something .
Otherwise I want to know the \ _context \ _ of the statement .
I want to know where the information is coming from .
For example , there 's this really good quote from LEAP ( Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ) stating that before the Harrison Anti-drug act , 1.3 \ % of the population was addicted to drugs .
Before the War on Drugs , 1.3 \ % of the population was addicted to drugs .
And today , 1.3 \ % of the population is addicted to drugs .
I 've been looking for the real source of that for days , still with no luck , and I refuse to use it until I find one .
Not because I do n't trust LEAP , but simply because they 're hardly an unbiased source .
I 've finally decided to try to contact them about it , and am awaiting a reply .
But seriously , I know a \ _lot \ _ of people will use facts without bothering to check out anything about it , but personally I refuse to state something as a fact until I know exactly where it 's coming from and in what context .
Otherwise you 're just spreading rumors - and from the small blurb that Google gives you , that 's all you can really do .
Until google is able to trace the source of whatever it 's telling you , those blurbs are only useful for determining which link to click - as they are intended.Plus , have you ever really searched something with 4 or 5 terms ?
Google tries to show you the context of as many terms as possible in that 2 or 3 line blurb , so you end up getting 4 or 5 words around each one .
Pretty much useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually, no.
Not unless I'm looking for a physics formula or something.
Otherwise I want to know the \_context\_ of the statement.
I want to know where the information is coming from.
For example, there's this really good quote from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) stating that before the Harrison Anti-drug act, 1.3\% of the population was addicted to drugs.
Before the War on Drugs, 1.3\% of the population was addicted to drugs.
And today, 1.3\% of the population is addicted to drugs.
I've been looking for the real source of that for days, still with no luck, and I refuse to use it until I find one.
Not because I don't trust LEAP, but simply because they're hardly an unbiased source.
I've finally decided to try to contact them about it, and am awaiting a reply.
But seriously, I know a \_lot\_ of people will use facts without bothering to check out anything about it, but personally I refuse to state something as a fact until I know exactly where it's coming from and in what context.
Otherwise you're just spreading rumors - and from the small blurb that Google gives you, that's all you can really do.
Until google is able to trace the source of whatever it's telling you, those blurbs are only useful for determining which link to click - as they are intended.Plus, have you ever really searched something with 4 or 5 terms?
Google tries to show you the context of as many terms as possible in that 2 or 3 line blurb, so you end up getting 4 or 5 words around each one.
Pretty much useless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040652</id>
	<title>total google removal?..</title>
	<author>subbydubbydoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257773100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i wonder if this block on google will extend to not using google ads on NI sites, and not using enhanced google search to find content on them....

surprisingly, this quality online establishment (http://www.thesun.co.uk/search/searchAction.do?query=murdoch+wants+to+ban+google&amp;view=internal&amp;pubName=sol&amp;submit=+Search+) hasn't picked up the story yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder if this block on google will extend to not using google ads on NI sites , and not using enhanced google search to find content on them... . surprisingly , this quality online establishment ( http : //www.thesun.co.uk/search/searchAction.do ? query = murdoch + wants + to + ban + google&amp;view = internal&amp;pubName = sol&amp;submit = + Search + ) has n't picked up the story yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder if this block on google will extend to not using google ads on NI sites, and not using enhanced google search to find content on them....

surprisingly, this quality online establishment (http://www.thesun.co.uk/search/searchAction.do?query=murdoch+wants+to+ban+google&amp;view=internal&amp;pubName=sol&amp;submit=+Search+) hasn't picked up the story yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30051926</id>
	<title>"would bar it altogether"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257849540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,'</p></div><p>Great, you overpaid blow hard, put up or shut up so we can goto court and shut your sorry ass down once and for all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'There 's a doctrine called " fair use , " which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,'Great , you overpaid blow hard , put up or shut up so we can goto court and shut your sorry ass down once and for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,'Great, you overpaid blow hard, put up or shut up so we can goto court and shut your sorry ass down once and for all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042366</id>
	<title>robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROBOTS.txt<br>robots.TXT<br>robotsDOTtxt<br>ROBOTS-DOT-FUCKING-TXT</p><p>Now die in a fire, Murdoch.  No one is dumb enough to fall for your line of bullshit, not even the US Congress or UK Parliament.</p><p>P.S.  robots, dot, txt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROBOTS.txtrobots.TXTrobotsDOTtxtROBOTS-DOT-FUCKING-TXTNow die in a fire , Murdoch .
No one is dumb enough to fall for your line of bullshit , not even the US Congress or UK Parliament.P.S .
robots , dot , txt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROBOTS.txtrobots.TXTrobotsDOTtxtROBOTS-DOT-FUCKING-TXTNow die in a fire, Murdoch.
No one is dumb enough to fall for your line of bullshit, not even the US Congress or UK Parliament.P.S.
robots, dot, txt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039908</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey dick sucker: Murdoch brought up fair use himself. l2read or something you dumb piece of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey dick sucker : Murdoch brought up fair use himself .
l2read or something you dumb piece of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey dick sucker: Murdoch brought up fair use himself.
l2read or something you dumb piece of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041976</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257784320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.</p></div><p>Not grounds for a lawsuit. Google is a private entity and can be as conservative as <a href="http://conservapedia.com/" title="conservapedia.com" rel="nofollow">Conservapedia</a> [conservapedia.com] if it likes. (Of course, if it did that, Google's <em>stockholders</em> might have grounds for a lawsuit, but not Fox.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely , Fox would sue , whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.Not grounds for a lawsuit .
Google is a private entity and can be as conservative as Conservapedia [ conservapedia.com ] if it likes .
( Of course , if it did that , Google 's stockholders might have grounds for a lawsuit , but not Fox .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.Not grounds for a lawsuit.
Google is a private entity and can be as conservative as Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] if it likes.
(Of course, if it did that, Google's stockholders might have grounds for a lawsuit, but not Fox.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040504</id>
	<title>Dear Rupert Murdoch:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257772200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go die in a fire.
<br> <br>
best regards, FudRucker</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go die in a fire .
best regards , FudRucker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go die in a fire.
best regards, FudRucker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042612</id>
	<title>Flash or Java</title>
	<author>eggman9713</author>
	<datestamp>1257792060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why doesn't Murdoch just have all his sites based ENTIRELY on Flash or Java? To my knowledge Google or any other search engine can't index the displayed results of  either of those very well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't Murdoch just have all his sites based ENTIRELY on Flash or Java ?
To my knowledge Google or any other search engine ca n't index the displayed results of either of those very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't Murdoch just have all his sites based ENTIRELY on Flash or Java?
To my knowledge Google or any other search engine can't index the displayed results of  either of those very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042004</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.</p><p>He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..</p><p>How has this not happened? Even mainstream media tends to at least try to get a statement from both sides.</p><p>I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject. Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of "google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \_completely\_ "block" us (and many others) from "stealing" their content by putting a simple text file on their site.</p></div><p>no he isn't that stupid, he is greedy and many others things I would like to call him but not stupid. <br> <br>
however many here on slashdot don't seem to understand what they want and perhaps could be classified as stupid. robots.txt DOES NOT provide the answer. murdoch wants to be available in searches and indexes, he doesn't want google to be able to republish his headlines and articles in such a way that takes away the reason to go to his sites.

So his viewpoint searches and indexes good
search results and news aggrevators that republish equals bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.He 's not that stupid a person.. and there 's no way that someone has n't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..How has this not happened ?
Even mainstream media tends to at least try to get a statement from both sides.I 'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject .
Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of " google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \ _completely \ _ " block " us ( and many others ) from " stealing " their content by putting a simple text file on their site.no he is n't that stupid , he is greedy and many others things I would like to call him but not stupid .
however many here on slashdot do n't seem to understand what they want and perhaps could be classified as stupid .
robots.txt DOES NOT provide the answer .
murdoch wants to be available in searches and indexes , he does n't want google to be able to republish his headlines and articles in such a way that takes away the reason to go to his sites .
So his viewpoint searches and indexes good search results and news aggrevators that republish equals bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..How has this not happened?
Even mainstream media tends to at least try to get a statement from both sides.I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google.. they would have gotten lots of information on the subject.
Or at least a quote they could include.. something along the lines of "google engineer x would like to remind Newscorp that they can \_completely\_ "block" us (and many others) from "stealing" their content by putting a simple text file on their site.no he isn't that stupid, he is greedy and many others things I would like to call him but not stupid.
however many here on slashdot don't seem to understand what they want and perhaps could be classified as stupid.
robots.txt DOES NOT provide the answer.
murdoch wants to be available in searches and indexes, he doesn't want google to be able to republish his headlines and articles in such a way that takes away the reason to go to his sites.
So his viewpoint searches and indexes good
search results and news aggrevators that republish equals bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30075584</id>
	<title>PoorRupert</title>
	<author>psibrman</author>
	<datestamp>1258051920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He doesn't have enough money.  It's part of the republican cancer.  We need to excise it from the family of man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He does n't have enough money .
It 's part of the republican cancer .
We need to excise it from the family of man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesn't have enough money.
It's part of the republican cancer.
We need to excise it from the family of man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041248</id>
	<title>Read WSJ for free!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257777420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sucks.<br>I've been reading WSJ for free for the past year by convincing them that <i>I</i> was Google with the RefControl extension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sucks.I 've been reading WSJ for free for the past year by convincing them that I was Google with the RefControl extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sucks.I've been reading WSJ for free for the past year by convincing them that I was Google with the RefControl extension.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040186</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1257770520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here. He's not that stupid a person..</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm afraid he is. He's an old school newspaper rag man who knows nothing else and he doesn't have the wherewithall in a million years to make his organisation exist in any other way. If you want an example of he is you need look no further than Eliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies, the last decent Bond villain there will be for quite some time. In fact, that's the situation Murdoch would love to be in. However, he simply doesn't comprehend that News Corporation is not the centre of the news world when it comes to people getting their information - and they don't have to.</p><blockquote><div><p>and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..</p></div></blockquote><p>
They probably have, but it would make no difference. He probably still firmly believes that there is a way to stop Google from aggregating news altogether, whether it be News Corp's or from somewhere else. It's costing him money. If News Corp's financial situation gets much worse then expect legal action to be taken against Google along the lines of "We deserve to be in business because we are appointed by God". As someone in the UK I wouldn't be happier if a side-effect of that was that BSkyB went bust.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google..</p></div></blockquote><p>
Google don't give a shit. I wouldn't. In the current climate the only way to stem advertising declines is to intelligently use content as a vehicle for better, targetted advertising. That means grabbing your technology and making it better. News Corp couldn't do that if their lives depended on it. In the face of that Murdoch is going back to what ne knows. He still believes that the content itself is what makes money i.e. selling newspapers....and he can then make a bit more by throwing advertising on top. If that doesn't work (it's not much of an 'if) then expect some kicking, screaming and general stamping of feet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here .
He 's not that stupid a person. . I 'm afraid he is .
He 's an old school newspaper rag man who knows nothing else and he does n't have the wherewithall in a million years to make his organisation exist in any other way .
If you want an example of he is you need look no further than Eliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies , the last decent Bond villain there will be for quite some time .
In fact , that 's the situation Murdoch would love to be in .
However , he simply does n't comprehend that News Corporation is not the centre of the news world when it comes to people getting their information - and they do n't have to.and there 's no way that someone has n't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now. . They probably have , but it would make no difference .
He probably still firmly believes that there is a way to stop Google from aggregating news altogether , whether it be News Corp 's or from somewhere else .
It 's costing him money .
If News Corp 's financial situation gets much worse then expect legal action to be taken against Google along the lines of " We deserve to be in business because we are appointed by God " .
As someone in the UK I would n't be happier if a side-effect of that was that BSkyB went bust.I 'm sure if the BBC had contacted google. . Google do n't give a shit .
I would n't .
In the current climate the only way to stem advertising declines is to intelligently use content as a vehicle for better , targetted advertising .
That means grabbing your technology and making it better .
News Corp could n't do that if their lives depended on it .
In the face of that Murdoch is going back to what ne knows .
He still believes that the content itself is what makes money i.e .
selling newspapers....and he can then make a bit more by throwing advertising on top .
If that does n't work ( it 's not much of an 'if ) then expect some kicking , screaming and general stamping of feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here.
He's not that stupid a person..
I'm afraid he is.
He's an old school newspaper rag man who knows nothing else and he doesn't have the wherewithall in a million years to make his organisation exist in any other way.
If you want an example of he is you need look no further than Eliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies, the last decent Bond villain there will be for quite some time.
In fact, that's the situation Murdoch would love to be in.
However, he simply doesn't comprehend that News Corporation is not the centre of the news world when it comes to people getting their information - and they don't have to.and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..
They probably have, but it would make no difference.
He probably still firmly believes that there is a way to stop Google from aggregating news altogether, whether it be News Corp's or from somewhere else.
It's costing him money.
If News Corp's financial situation gets much worse then expect legal action to be taken against Google along the lines of "We deserve to be in business because we are appointed by God".
As someone in the UK I wouldn't be happier if a side-effect of that was that BSkyB went bust.I'm sure if the BBC had contacted google..
Google don't give a shit.
I wouldn't.
In the current climate the only way to stem advertising declines is to intelligently use content as a vehicle for better, targetted advertising.
That means grabbing your technology and making it better.
News Corp couldn't do that if their lives depended on it.
In the face of that Murdoch is going back to what ne knows.
He still believes that the content itself is what makes money i.e.
selling newspapers....and he can then make a bit more by throwing advertising on top.
If that doesn't work (it's not much of an 'if) then expect some kicking, screaming and general stamping of feet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30051442</id>
	<title>robots.txt</title>
	<author>jbuk</author>
	<datestamp>1257847680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy who is adding a line in robots.txt and getting paid a fortune for 'complex technical measures' is one smart fellow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy who is adding a line in robots.txt and getting paid a fortune for 'complex technical measures ' is one smart fellow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy who is adding a line in robots.txt and getting paid a fortune for 'complex technical measures' is one smart fellow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043716</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>ChildOfLore</author>
	<datestamp>1257851820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, I wonder why his business is dying on the internet when other news sites are profiting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , I wonder why his business is dying on the internet when other news sites are profiting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, I wonder why his business is dying on the internet when other news sites are profiting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040094</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1257770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He wants the money that google is getting, that is what this is about.  I suspect he heard about "robots.txt" before slashdot existed but quietly blocking things doesn't help him - he wants to make a lot of noise and then get governments to pass laws to restrict the internet so he can make more money from it.<br>It's not a lack of action.  The action in progress is to make a lot of noise and blow this thing out of proportion.   I suspect it will get to the major headline stage for a while before this goes away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He wants the money that google is getting , that is what this is about .
I suspect he heard about " robots.txt " before slashdot existed but quietly blocking things does n't help him - he wants to make a lot of noise and then get governments to pass laws to restrict the internet so he can make more money from it.It 's not a lack of action .
The action in progress is to make a lot of noise and blow this thing out of proportion .
I suspect it will get to the major headline stage for a while before this goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He wants the money that google is getting, that is what this is about.
I suspect he heard about "robots.txt" before slashdot existed but quietly blocking things doesn't help him - he wants to make a lot of noise and then get governments to pass laws to restrict the internet so he can make more money from it.It's not a lack of action.
The action in progress is to make a lot of noise and blow this thing out of proportion.
I suspect it will get to the major headline stage for a while before this goes away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041764</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>laoudji</author>
	<datestamp>1257782100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?</p></div><p>Yes.  Knowledge is power.  The fewer people who have access to the WSJ (knowledge), the more powerful it becomes, the more likely people are to pay for it.  Unless of course you argue that what's found in the WSJ can easily be found elsewhere...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine ? Yes .
Knowledge is power .
The fewer people who have access to the WSJ ( knowledge ) , the more powerful it becomes , the more likely people are to pay for it .
Unless of course you argue that what 's found in the WSJ can easily be found elsewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?Yes.
Knowledge is power.
The fewer people who have access to the WSJ (knowledge), the more powerful it becomes, the more likely people are to pay for it.
Unless of course you argue that what's found in the WSJ can easily be found elsewhere...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043610</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257850080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).</p></div><p>How is that not politics?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not politics , it 's purely ( an attempt to save a failed ) business ( model ) .How is that not politics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).How is that not politics?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041582</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257780300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He can totally block Google any time he wants to.  He doesn't want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He can totally block Google any time he wants to .
He does n't want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can totally block Google any time he wants to.
He doesn't want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040680</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1257773280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?</p></div><p>Not really, no... I did <b>not</b> click on links that clearly showed a sequence of alphabetical words trying to get hits on search engines. But I don't remember ever finding a hit on Google that could answer my question and not clicking it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ? Not really , no... I did not click on links that clearly showed a sequence of alphabetical words trying to get hits on search engines .
But I do n't remember ever finding a hit on Google that could answer my question and not clicking it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?Not really, no... I did not click on links that clearly showed a sequence of alphabetical words trying to get hits on search engines.
But I don't remember ever finding a hit on Google that could answer my question and not clicking it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043634</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the digital age, Rupert</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1257850560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The advertising industry won't disappear. It will simply transform, like it it currently is. Yes, the other industries you mentioned will disappear, but there are also many new types of businesses that have sprung up as well because of new media. People still want their news - its just the delivery mechanism that has changed.
<br>Personally, I am glad that the power to focus public opinion for the purpose of selfish interests has dissipated slightly - because this is of course what this battle Murdoch has started is really about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advertising industry wo n't disappear .
It will simply transform , like it it currently is .
Yes , the other industries you mentioned will disappear , but there are also many new types of businesses that have sprung up as well because of new media .
People still want their news - its just the delivery mechanism that has changed .
Personally , I am glad that the power to focus public opinion for the purpose of selfish interests has dissipated slightly - because this is of course what this battle Murdoch has started is really about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advertising industry won't disappear.
It will simply transform, like it it currently is.
Yes, the other industries you mentioned will disappear, but there are also many new types of businesses that have sprung up as well because of new media.
People still want their news - its just the delivery mechanism that has changed.
Personally, I am glad that the power to focus public opinion for the purpose of selfish interests has dissipated slightly - because this is of course what this battle Murdoch has started is really about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040704</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Thangodin</author>
	<datestamp>1257773400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch has been talking about a paying model for internet news for a year or so now. The problem is, he's got the wrong product. People will pay for information, though. The Economist has been growing steadily for thirty years, making good profits, and can even charge for their web site. But Murdoch isn't selling information, he's selling infotainment--crap, basically. The internet already has tons of free crap, so why would anyone pay Murdoch for his crap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch has been talking about a paying model for internet news for a year or so now .
The problem is , he 's got the wrong product .
People will pay for information , though .
The Economist has been growing steadily for thirty years , making good profits , and can even charge for their web site .
But Murdoch is n't selling information , he 's selling infotainment--crap , basically .
The internet already has tons of free crap , so why would anyone pay Murdoch for his crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch has been talking about a paying model for internet news for a year or so now.
The problem is, he's got the wrong product.
People will pay for information, though.
The Economist has been growing steadily for thirty years, making good profits, and can even charge for their web site.
But Murdoch isn't selling information, he's selling infotainment--crap, basically.
The internet already has tons of free crap, so why would anyone pay Murdoch for his crap?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30046182</id>
	<title>Rupert Murdoch R.I.P.</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1257871320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Wow, every time this guy opens his mouth, he confidently displays his ignorance.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This one is on par with digging your own grave and pulling the hole in after you.<br>Not only will the world trudge right by his silly little "news" stands, but they will get their news from any competitor that had enough brains to register with all the search engines.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Sorry Rupert, but the business model of your silly obsolete industry has changed just like that of the music industry. Soon you will be about as necessary to the world as a buggy whip manufacturer. Your inability to evolve your business and accept its new shortcomings means years from now business forensic students will be studying the fossils you left behind. Some peoples true mission in life is to serve as a warning to others. "Don't let this be you!" Your disinformation services will be missed as yesterdays newspaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , every time this guy opens his mouth , he confidently displays his ignorance .
            This one is on par with digging your own grave and pulling the hole in after you.Not only will the world trudge right by his silly little " news " stands , but they will get their news from any competitor that had enough brains to register with all the search engines .
      Sorry Rupert , but the business model of your silly obsolete industry has changed just like that of the music industry .
Soon you will be about as necessary to the world as a buggy whip manufacturer .
Your inability to evolve your business and accept its new shortcomings means years from now business forensic students will be studying the fossils you left behind .
Some peoples true mission in life is to serve as a warning to others .
" Do n't let this be you !
" Your disinformation services will be missed as yesterdays newspaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Wow, every time this guy opens his mouth, he confidently displays his ignorance.
            This one is on par with digging your own grave and pulling the hole in after you.Not only will the world trudge right by his silly little "news" stands, but they will get their news from any competitor that had enough brains to register with all the search engines.
      Sorry Rupert, but the business model of your silly obsolete industry has changed just like that of the music industry.
Soon you will be about as necessary to the world as a buggy whip manufacturer.
Your inability to evolve your business and accept its new shortcomings means years from now business forensic students will be studying the fossils you left behind.
Some peoples true mission in life is to serve as a warning to others.
"Don't let this be you!
" Your disinformation services will be missed as yesterdays newspaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040372</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1257771480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.</p><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then <b>not</b> clicked the website?</p></div><p>Most news articles are at least several paragraphs, if not several pages.  If having access to the little paragraph of sample text provided by a Google search removes all incentive to actually visit the site and read the full article, that should tell you something about the merit of their articles.  The antithesis of this would be fascinating, well-written, nuanced coverage of the news that holds your interest and makes you feel that the entire article was worth reading.  It's no wonder they are talking about leveraging the force of (copyright) law to get their way -- they seem to have little else to fall back on.
<br> <br>
If they do decide to prevent Google from indexing their site, I predict they will see a significant reduction in traffic to their site.  There are many places to go for news, most of which would be overjoyed to have a high ranking on Google.  If they believe that they are so unique and indispensable that removing their content from Google searches will make people go directly to their sites instead of going to whichever news sites replace them in Google's listing, I think they are in for a surprise.  If such an event causes them to have a change of heart, I hope Google says "nah, you demanded that we stop indexing your site and we complied; now that you have been replaced by other news services we have no interest in indexing your site again."  In other words, this is the kind of asshattery that "the market" is able to correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news , come to us and do it properly.Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ? Most news articles are at least several paragraphs , if not several pages .
If having access to the little paragraph of sample text provided by a Google search removes all incentive to actually visit the site and read the full article , that should tell you something about the merit of their articles .
The antithesis of this would be fascinating , well-written , nuanced coverage of the news that holds your interest and makes you feel that the entire article was worth reading .
It 's no wonder they are talking about leveraging the force of ( copyright ) law to get their way -- they seem to have little else to fall back on .
If they do decide to prevent Google from indexing their site , I predict they will see a significant reduction in traffic to their site .
There are many places to go for news , most of which would be overjoyed to have a high ranking on Google .
If they believe that they are so unique and indispensable that removing their content from Google searches will make people go directly to their sites instead of going to whichever news sites replace them in Google 's listing , I think they are in for a surprise .
If such an event causes them to have a change of heart , I hope Google says " nah , you demanded that we stop indexing your site and we complied ; now that you have been replaced by other news services we have no interest in indexing your site again .
" In other words , this is the kind of asshattery that " the market " is able to correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?Most news articles are at least several paragraphs, if not several pages.
If having access to the little paragraph of sample text provided by a Google search removes all incentive to actually visit the site and read the full article, that should tell you something about the merit of their articles.
The antithesis of this would be fascinating, well-written, nuanced coverage of the news that holds your interest and makes you feel that the entire article was worth reading.
It's no wonder they are talking about leveraging the force of (copyright) law to get their way -- they seem to have little else to fall back on.
If they do decide to prevent Google from indexing their site, I predict they will see a significant reduction in traffic to their site.
There are many places to go for news, most of which would be overjoyed to have a high ranking on Google.
If they believe that they are so unique and indispensable that removing their content from Google searches will make people go directly to their sites instead of going to whichever news sites replace them in Google's listing, I think they are in for a surprise.
If such an event causes them to have a change of heart, I hope Google says "nah, you demanded that we stop indexing your site and we complied; now that you have been replaced by other news services we have no interest in indexing your site again.
"  In other words, this is the kind of asshattery that "the market" is able to correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040120</id>
	<title>Crook!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch knows nothing about how the internet runs, freedom and web crawling. Does he really think that subscriptions based news is the way forward? These people are after one thing....YOUR MONEY!<br>Sky/Direct TV is a Murdoch Monopoly and brainwashes you into buying their exorbitant packages.....do the psychology on this people.<br>Do not buy ANY newspapers, he probably owns one of them, save on paper as well.</p><p>User-agent: *<br>Disallow: /</p><p>Google all your news<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch knows nothing about how the internet runs , freedom and web crawling .
Does he really think that subscriptions based news is the way forward ?
These people are after one thing....YOUR MONEY ! Sky/Direct TV is a Murdoch Monopoly and brainwashes you into buying their exorbitant packages.....do the psychology on this people.Do not buy ANY newspapers , he probably owns one of them , save on paper as well.User-agent : * Disallow : /Google all your news : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch knows nothing about how the internet runs, freedom and web crawling.
Does he really think that subscriptions based news is the way forward?
These people are after one thing....YOUR MONEY!Sky/Direct TV is a Murdoch Monopoly and brainwashes you into buying their exorbitant packages.....do the psychology on this people.Do not buy ANY newspapers, he probably owns one of them, save on paper as well.User-agent: *Disallow: /Google all your news :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040728</id>
	<title>Murdoch announces plan to cut off nose</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1257773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> In an exclusive interview with one of his employees, Rupert Murdoch announced that it was time to draw a line in the sand in his constant battle to frustrate freeloading consumers by scheduling <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/11/10/murdoch-announces-plan-to-cut-off-nose/" title="today.com">extensive rhinoplasty</a> [today.com].

</p><p>As the logical extension of his intent to improve monetization of his global media empire, an aggressive research team, led by his own grubby, questing index finger (itself a semi-autonomous publicly traded subsidiary of ArmCorp) had discovered a hitherto unprofitable branch of Mr Murdoch's own face and immediately set to analysing the potential in the "streaming content" market.

</p><p> "Thanks to the pervasive and anarchic medium of light and an endemic, unscrupulous approach to photon-consumption," said Mr Murdoch to a camera he owned, "the public have been stealing &mdash; we believe it is theft &mdash; visible spectra which carry a representation of my nose. When I consent to an interview, a TV appearance or a personal meeting with an individual, we are entering into a contract in which I am licensing access to me, Rupert Murdoch, a highly lucrative and profitable range of properties and services.

</p><p>"For too long, people have been content to pay only for access to my thoughts, speech or round-the-clock footage of the contents of my bowels &mdash; via the Times, Sky and Fox News respectively &mdash; while stealing valuable images of my nose, its nostrils and their contents, then rebroadcasting and shamelessly profiteering.

</p><p> "When a reporter negotiates an interview with me, as well as broadcasting the material he has licensed legitimately, he frequently steals additional content without permission. Telling another reporter down the pub 'I just interviewed that arsehole Murdoch, what a leathery-faced, jowly, big-nosed, offensive wanker he is' is time-shifting and re-disseminating unlicensed intellectual property. Commentary based upon my opinions is legitimate as paid output from the premium outlet of my mouth. Any entertainment derived from the rest of my face is theft, pure and simple. There is no such thing as fair use."

</p><p>The interview itself took place on Sky Channel 149, a pioneering venture to broadcast 24-hour footage of the view from Mr Murdoch's bathroom cabinet. In line with Mr Murdoch's policy of preferring fewer paying customers and no freeloaders, Sky 149 has precisely one subcriber, with Mr Murdoch himself paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars each month for access, for the purpose of shaving.

</p><p>Having successfully franchised out his forehead, jowls and cheeks to a conglomerate representing elephants born without ball-bags, and following a failed attempt to charge a subscription fee to customers prepared to pay to punch Murdoch square in the nose, the decision was eventually made to excise the entire section of the business, rather than allow further illicit exploitation, piracy and copyright terrorism.

</p><p> When questioned as to what purpose the resulting gap in his cranial portfolio might be turned, Murdoch suggested that he was tentatively considering offers from the adult entertainment market to employ his skull cavity as a giant fucking cunt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an exclusive interview with one of his employees , Rupert Murdoch announced that it was time to draw a line in the sand in his constant battle to frustrate freeloading consumers by scheduling extensive rhinoplasty [ today.com ] .
As the logical extension of his intent to improve monetization of his global media empire , an aggressive research team , led by his own grubby , questing index finger ( itself a semi-autonomous publicly traded subsidiary of ArmCorp ) had discovered a hitherto unprofitable branch of Mr Murdoch 's own face and immediately set to analysing the potential in the " streaming content " market .
" Thanks to the pervasive and anarchic medium of light and an endemic , unscrupulous approach to photon-consumption , " said Mr Murdoch to a camera he owned , " the public have been stealing    we believe it is theft    visible spectra which carry a representation of my nose .
When I consent to an interview , a TV appearance or a personal meeting with an individual , we are entering into a contract in which I am licensing access to me , Rupert Murdoch , a highly lucrative and profitable range of properties and services .
" For too long , people have been content to pay only for access to my thoughts , speech or round-the-clock footage of the contents of my bowels    via the Times , Sky and Fox News respectively    while stealing valuable images of my nose , its nostrils and their contents , then rebroadcasting and shamelessly profiteering .
" When a reporter negotiates an interview with me , as well as broadcasting the material he has licensed legitimately , he frequently steals additional content without permission .
Telling another reporter down the pub 'I just interviewed that arsehole Murdoch , what a leathery-faced , jowly , big-nosed , offensive wanker he is ' is time-shifting and re-disseminating unlicensed intellectual property .
Commentary based upon my opinions is legitimate as paid output from the premium outlet of my mouth .
Any entertainment derived from the rest of my face is theft , pure and simple .
There is no such thing as fair use .
" The interview itself took place on Sky Channel 149 , a pioneering venture to broadcast 24-hour footage of the view from Mr Murdoch 's bathroom cabinet .
In line with Mr Murdoch 's policy of preferring fewer paying customers and no freeloaders , Sky 149 has precisely one subcriber , with Mr Murdoch himself paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars each month for access , for the purpose of shaving .
Having successfully franchised out his forehead , jowls and cheeks to a conglomerate representing elephants born without ball-bags , and following a failed attempt to charge a subscription fee to customers prepared to pay to punch Murdoch square in the nose , the decision was eventually made to excise the entire section of the business , rather than allow further illicit exploitation , piracy and copyright terrorism .
When questioned as to what purpose the resulting gap in his cranial portfolio might be turned , Murdoch suggested that he was tentatively considering offers from the adult entertainment market to employ his skull cavity as a giant fucking cunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In an exclusive interview with one of his employees, Rupert Murdoch announced that it was time to draw a line in the sand in his constant battle to frustrate freeloading consumers by scheduling extensive rhinoplasty [today.com].
As the logical extension of his intent to improve monetization of his global media empire, an aggressive research team, led by his own grubby, questing index finger (itself a semi-autonomous publicly traded subsidiary of ArmCorp) had discovered a hitherto unprofitable branch of Mr Murdoch's own face and immediately set to analysing the potential in the "streaming content" market.
"Thanks to the pervasive and anarchic medium of light and an endemic, unscrupulous approach to photon-consumption," said Mr Murdoch to a camera he owned, "the public have been stealing — we believe it is theft — visible spectra which carry a representation of my nose.
When I consent to an interview, a TV appearance or a personal meeting with an individual, we are entering into a contract in which I am licensing access to me, Rupert Murdoch, a highly lucrative and profitable range of properties and services.
"For too long, people have been content to pay only for access to my thoughts, speech or round-the-clock footage of the contents of my bowels — via the Times, Sky and Fox News respectively — while stealing valuable images of my nose, its nostrils and their contents, then rebroadcasting and shamelessly profiteering.
"When a reporter negotiates an interview with me, as well as broadcasting the material he has licensed legitimately, he frequently steals additional content without permission.
Telling another reporter down the pub 'I just interviewed that arsehole Murdoch, what a leathery-faced, jowly, big-nosed, offensive wanker he is' is time-shifting and re-disseminating unlicensed intellectual property.
Commentary based upon my opinions is legitimate as paid output from the premium outlet of my mouth.
Any entertainment derived from the rest of my face is theft, pure and simple.
There is no such thing as fair use.
"

The interview itself took place on Sky Channel 149, a pioneering venture to broadcast 24-hour footage of the view from Mr Murdoch's bathroom cabinet.
In line with Mr Murdoch's policy of preferring fewer paying customers and no freeloaders, Sky 149 has precisely one subcriber, with Mr Murdoch himself paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars each month for access, for the purpose of shaving.
Having successfully franchised out his forehead, jowls and cheeks to a conglomerate representing elephants born without ball-bags, and following a failed attempt to charge a subscription fee to customers prepared to pay to punch Murdoch square in the nose, the decision was eventually made to excise the entire section of the business, rather than allow further illicit exploitation, piracy and copyright terrorism.
When questioned as to what purpose the resulting gap in his cranial portfolio might be turned, Murdoch suggested that he was tentatively considering offers from the adult entertainment market to employ his skull cavity as a giant fucking cunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041520</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257779760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might work. Google could send a letter to Murdoch (and perhaps issue a press release) explaining something like:<blockquote><div><p> <i>It has come to our attention that Mr. Murdoch believes Google doesn't have a right to show excerpts from content his companies distribute.<br> <br>Although we are confident in our legal analysis which concludes that our usage falls under "fair use" and that Mr. Murdoch's position is without legal merit, the outcome of legal challenges in evolving frontiers is difficult to predict. We have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to take action to mitigate damages, esp. when such actions would not measurably affect our profits. Counsel has advised us to exclude the questioned material from our indexes until this matter is resolved.<br> <br>Therefore, effectively immediately we have purged all such information from our indexes and will no longer crawl Mr. Murdoch's sites. We request that Mr. Murdoc notify us immediately if he believes we have missed any of his material that he asserts we should not display in search results so we can exclude it as well.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

(And, if they are really clever, they will word the message such a way that the first letter of each word in the first sentence sends a somewhat crisper message. Since Google is in California, they can just call the guber to locate a specialist in this art.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might work .
Google could send a letter to Murdoch ( and perhaps issue a press release ) explaining something like : It has come to our attention that Mr. Murdoch believes Google does n't have a right to show excerpts from content his companies distribute .
Although we are confident in our legal analysis which concludes that our usage falls under " fair use " and that Mr. Murdoch 's position is without legal merit , the outcome of legal challenges in evolving frontiers is difficult to predict .
We have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to take action to mitigate damages , esp .
when such actions would not measurably affect our profits .
Counsel has advised us to exclude the questioned material from our indexes until this matter is resolved .
Therefore , effectively immediately we have purged all such information from our indexes and will no longer crawl Mr. Murdoch 's sites .
We request that Mr. Murdoc notify us immediately if he believes we have missed any of his material that he asserts we should not display in search results so we can exclude it as well .
( And , if they are really clever , they will word the message such a way that the first letter of each word in the first sentence sends a somewhat crisper message .
Since Google is in California , they can just call the guber to locate a specialist in this art .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might work.
Google could send a letter to Murdoch (and perhaps issue a press release) explaining something like: It has come to our attention that Mr. Murdoch believes Google doesn't have a right to show excerpts from content his companies distribute.
Although we are confident in our legal analysis which concludes that our usage falls under "fair use" and that Mr. Murdoch's position is without legal merit, the outcome of legal challenges in evolving frontiers is difficult to predict.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to take action to mitigate damages, esp.
when such actions would not measurably affect our profits.
Counsel has advised us to exclude the questioned material from our indexes until this matter is resolved.
Therefore, effectively immediately we have purged all such information from our indexes and will no longer crawl Mr. Murdoch's sites.
We request that Mr. Murdoc notify us immediately if he believes we have missed any of his material that he asserts we should not display in search results so we can exclude it as well.
(And, if they are really clever, they will word the message such a way that the first letter of each word in the first sentence sends a somewhat crisper message.
Since Google is in California, they can just call the guber to locate a specialist in this art.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040234</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement. It's an extenuating circumstance.</i> <p>
Wrong.  Fair use is a defense to use when you are <b>accused</b> of copyright infringement.  If you prove that what you did is covered by fair use, you are not guilty of infringing because Fair Use is an <b>exception</b> to copyright.  An extenuating circumstance is something you invoke either after you are found guilty (in a criminal case) or as part of your defense in a civil case in an attempt to lower or avoid any fines, judgments or other penalties.  Your basic idea is right, that Google isn't infringing, but your explanation of Fair Use was wrong and misleading.  N.B.: IANAL, but I am a writer, and have had reason to familiarize myself with the concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement .
It 's an extenuating circumstance .
Wrong. Fair use is a defense to use when you are accused of copyright infringement .
If you prove that what you did is covered by fair use , you are not guilty of infringing because Fair Use is an exception to copyright .
An extenuating circumstance is something you invoke either after you are found guilty ( in a criminal case ) or as part of your defense in a civil case in an attempt to lower or avoid any fines , judgments or other penalties .
Your basic idea is right , that Google is n't infringing , but your explanation of Fair Use was wrong and misleading .
N.B. : IANAL , but I am a writer , and have had reason to familiarize myself with the concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement.
It's an extenuating circumstance.
Wrong.  Fair use is a defense to use when you are accused of copyright infringement.
If you prove that what you did is covered by fair use, you are not guilty of infringing because Fair Use is an exception to copyright.
An extenuating circumstance is something you invoke either after you are found guilty (in a criminal case) or as part of your defense in a civil case in an attempt to lower or avoid any fines, judgments or other penalties.
Your basic idea is right, that Google isn't infringing, but your explanation of Fair Use was wrong and misleading.
N.B.: IANAL, but I am a writer, and have had reason to familiarize myself with the concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039990</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1257769620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It has to be political</p></div></blockquote><p>It is most definitely political and he's been making noise around the world about this for a few months.<br>It's not just google that he is complaining about, it's the BBC as well.  He's attempting to make the internet look like a den of pirates and thieves and then prompt governments to nobble it so that he can make money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be politicalIt is most definitely political and he 's been making noise around the world about this for a few months.It 's not just google that he is complaining about , it 's the BBC as well .
He 's attempting to make the internet look like a den of pirates and thieves and then prompt governments to nobble it so that he can make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be politicalIt is most definitely political and he's been making noise around the world about this for a few months.It's not just google that he is complaining about, it's the BBC as well.
He's attempting to make the internet look like a den of pirates and thieves and then prompt governments to nobble it so that he can make money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040158</id>
	<title>interesting stuff...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets build a new internet using vpn, daisy chained wireless devices and open source satellites. Then we can hand the empty old internet over to these corporations and politicians to fight over.<br>The problems they apparently face will be solved. They can have their chicken and egg situation and eat it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets build a new internet using vpn , daisy chained wireless devices and open source satellites .
Then we can hand the empty old internet over to these corporations and politicians to fight over.The problems they apparently face will be solved .
They can have their chicken and egg situation and eat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets build a new internet using vpn, daisy chained wireless devices and open source satellites.
Then we can hand the empty old internet over to these corporations and politicians to fight over.The problems they apparently face will be solved.
They can have their chicken and egg situation and eat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't see why google just doesn't stop indexing their stuff for a while, and waiting for them to scream about how they're no longer in the serch results.
</p><p>
Then tell Murdoch "How much are you going to pay to be back in?"
</p><p>
Then, no matter how much he offers, say, "Not enough."
</p><p>
When he says "Well, how much would it cost?" reply "In your dreams, fatboy!"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why google just does n't stop indexing their stuff for a while , and waiting for them to scream about how they 're no longer in the serch results .
Then tell Murdoch " How much are you going to pay to be back in ?
" Then , no matter how much he offers , say , " Not enough .
" When he says " Well , how much would it cost ?
" reply " In your dreams , fatboy !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't see why google just doesn't stop indexing their stuff for a while, and waiting for them to scream about how they're no longer in the serch results.
Then tell Murdoch "How much are you going to pay to be back in?
"

Then, no matter how much he offers, say, "Not enough.
"

When he says "Well, how much would it cost?
" reply "In your dreams, fatboy!
"
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043116</id>
	<title>One of those situations...</title>
	<author>jplopez</author>
	<datestamp>1257885840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... where Mrs. Bullet meets Mr. Foot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... where Mrs. Bullet meets Mr. Foot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... where Mrs. Bullet meets Mr. Foot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043552</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis. But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.</p></div><p>What about turning into government-supported monopoly (like BBC)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis .
But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.What about turning into government-supported monopoly ( like BBC ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis.
But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.What about turning into government-supported monopoly (like BBC)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042742</id>
	<title>Re:The last angry twitches of a dieing media forma</title>
	<author>Logic Worshipper</author>
	<datestamp>1257794040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think news corpse is a good journalism, then I have a bridge to sell...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think news corpse is a good journalism , then I have a bridge to sell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think news corpse is a good journalism, then I have a bridge to sell...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30050012</id>
	<title>The New Age</title>
	<author>SuperTechnoNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257884940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a new age. The Internet was originally based on the free flow of information for all. For better or worse (for some) it is changing the way we look at, retrieve, and digest information. The Internet is not owned by any one person  or  corporation or entity. There are no majority stock holders. There are no CEO"s,  no board of directors, no central control, but holy shit it just works!  Every morning I get up the Internet is just there buzzing away. How the hell did we do that in this money is all society? This is why the Internet scares the hell out of thees old crotchety greedy bastards like Murdoch. The Internet is a force unto its own, giving people access to instant and usually free information. (as it should be) Like a storm, this force is unrelenting  and is changing the landscape of society.    Now guys like Murdoch would rather stay outside and yell at the sky to stop storming instead of getting in a row boat and paddle off to safety and "go with the flow" as it were.  We will see his corpse wash up soon. In fact that is what we are seeing now. This is the last death throws for Murdoch and the like (they squirm allot just before dying). So if him and others don't wake up and stop flogging us with their old business models  which do not apply anymore, and get on the row boat, they will surly drown.  Its pitifully obvious that they don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a new age .
The Internet was originally based on the free flow of information for all .
For better or worse ( for some ) it is changing the way we look at , retrieve , and digest information .
The Internet is not owned by any one person or corporation or entity .
There are no majority stock holders .
There are no CEO " s , no board of directors , no central control , but holy shit it just works !
Every morning I get up the Internet is just there buzzing away .
How the hell did we do that in this money is all society ?
This is why the Internet scares the hell out of thees old crotchety greedy bastards like Murdoch .
The Internet is a force unto its own , giving people access to instant and usually free information .
( as it should be ) Like a storm , this force is unrelenting and is changing the landscape of society .
Now guys like Murdoch would rather stay outside and yell at the sky to stop storming instead of getting in a row boat and paddle off to safety and " go with the flow " as it were .
We will see his corpse wash up soon .
In fact that is what we are seeing now .
This is the last death throws for Murdoch and the like ( they squirm allot just before dying ) .
So if him and others do n't wake up and stop flogging us with their old business models which do not apply anymore , and get on the row boat , they will surly drown .
Its pitifully obvious that they do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a new age.
The Internet was originally based on the free flow of information for all.
For better or worse (for some) it is changing the way we look at, retrieve, and digest information.
The Internet is not owned by any one person  or  corporation or entity.
There are no majority stock holders.
There are no CEO"s,  no board of directors, no central control, but holy shit it just works!
Every morning I get up the Internet is just there buzzing away.
How the hell did we do that in this money is all society?
This is why the Internet scares the hell out of thees old crotchety greedy bastards like Murdoch.
The Internet is a force unto its own, giving people access to instant and usually free information.
(as it should be) Like a storm, this force is unrelenting  and is changing the landscape of society.
Now guys like Murdoch would rather stay outside and yell at the sky to stop storming instead of getting in a row boat and paddle off to safety and "go with the flow" as it were.
We will see his corpse wash up soon.
In fact that is what we are seeing now.
This is the last death throws for Murdoch and the like (they squirm allot just before dying).
So if him and others don't wake up and stop flogging us with their old business models  which do not apply anymore, and get on the row boat, they will surly drown.
Its pitifully obvious that they don't get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044102</id>
	<title>Dept of no surprise</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1257857340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man to whom transatlantic phone calls were high technology in 'doesn't understand how web works' shocker</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man to whom transatlantic phone calls were high technology in 'does n't understand how web works ' shocker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man to whom transatlantic phone calls were high technology in 'doesn't understand how web works' shocker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041100</id>
	<title>speed he will turn  around</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257776100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be interesting to see how fast Murdoch will do a complete U-Turn when his sites become a forgotten backwater because Google isn't directing traffic there any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be interesting to see how fast Murdoch will do a complete U-Turn when his sites become a forgotten backwater because Google is n't directing traffic there any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be interesting to see how fast Murdoch will do a complete U-Turn when his sites become a forgotten backwater because Google isn't directing traffic there any more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039864</id>
	<title>Thesaurus?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google should just change the headings slightly using a Thesaurus or some Semantics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should just change the headings slightly using a Thesaurus or some Semantics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should just change the headings slightly using a Thesaurus or some Semantics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042038</id>
	<title>Bye Rupert, wish I was sorry to see you go.</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1257784920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this is what is was like watching the last few mastodons lumbering off a cliff, confident there was food at the bottom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this is what is was like watching the last few mastodons lumbering off a cliff , confident there was food at the bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this is what is was like watching the last few mastodons lumbering off a cliff, confident there was food at the bottom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30053130</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1257855060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
With respect, you and just about everyone else here is missing the point and deliberately over simplifying the issue.   Despite what the article implies, I do not believe Murdoch has ever argued that Google should not index his sites.   Never.   Let's say it again - NEVER.  And that is what robots.txt would do.
</p><p>
So can we stop with lame wise cracks about robots.txt and have a real discussion about the more interesting substance of the issue?   Like eg: how much of an article it is fair use to reproduce as context in a search result?   What about *not* as a search result but as default content on an aggregation page like Google News?   As far as I can tell Murdoch thinks it would be appropriate if Google returns nothing more than a few words from the headline.
</p><p>
Now this is not to say I agree with Murdoch in the slightest.  I think he's an idiot and is basically flushing his business down the toilet.  He's hoping that if he's brazen enough with this, other newspapers will join him and change the existing precedent that agregators can quote whole paragraphs from articles and the headline.   It won't work - even if they all newspapers get on board, people will just flock to free news services instead like the BBC because they have clearer context in search results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With respect , you and just about everyone else here is missing the point and deliberately over simplifying the issue .
Despite what the article implies , I do not believe Murdoch has ever argued that Google should not index his sites .
Never. Let 's say it again - NEVER .
And that is what robots.txt would do .
So can we stop with lame wise cracks about robots.txt and have a real discussion about the more interesting substance of the issue ?
Like eg : how much of an article it is fair use to reproduce as context in a search result ?
What about * not * as a search result but as default content on an aggregation page like Google News ?
As far as I can tell Murdoch thinks it would be appropriate if Google returns nothing more than a few words from the headline .
Now this is not to say I agree with Murdoch in the slightest .
I think he 's an idiot and is basically flushing his business down the toilet .
He 's hoping that if he 's brazen enough with this , other newspapers will join him and change the existing precedent that agregators can quote whole paragraphs from articles and the headline .
It wo n't work - even if they all newspapers get on board , people will just flock to free news services instead like the BBC because they have clearer context in search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
With respect, you and just about everyone else here is missing the point and deliberately over simplifying the issue.
Despite what the article implies, I do not believe Murdoch has ever argued that Google should not index his sites.
Never.   Let's say it again - NEVER.
And that is what robots.txt would do.
So can we stop with lame wise cracks about robots.txt and have a real discussion about the more interesting substance of the issue?
Like eg: how much of an article it is fair use to reproduce as context in a search result?
What about *not* as a search result but as default content on an aggregation page like Google News?
As far as I can tell Murdoch thinks it would be appropriate if Google returns nothing more than a few words from the headline.
Now this is not to say I agree with Murdoch in the slightest.
I think he's an idiot and is basically flushing his business down the toilet.
He's hoping that if he's brazen enough with this, other newspapers will join him and change the existing precedent that agregators can quote whole paragraphs from articles and the headline.
It won't work - even if they all newspapers get on board, people will just flock to free news services instead like the BBC because they have clearer context in search results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040436</id>
	<title>I put this ball in Goolge's court now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want the option to filter out news sources in the searches. I can make Rupert happy by making me happy. I have no interest in reading his rag. There are a few other far right or far left rags I could filter out as well, but I would be happy to just get rid of Fox all together.</p><p>It can join the blocked stations on my cable box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want the option to filter out news sources in the searches .
I can make Rupert happy by making me happy .
I have no interest in reading his rag .
There are a few other far right or far left rags I could filter out as well , but I would be happy to just get rid of Fox all together.It can join the blocked stations on my cable box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want the option to filter out news sources in the searches.
I can make Rupert happy by making me happy.
I have no interest in reading his rag.
There are a few other far right or far left rags I could filter out as well, but I would be happy to just get rid of Fox all together.It can join the blocked stations on my cable box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052616</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in other news, Murdoch wants a commission for every time someone mentions his name or talks about any of his companies, or anything people saw on TV.</p><p>Murdoch argues... "I don't see why people think that they can talk about something I created and own.  How dare people shoot the sh*t off of my back?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in other news , Murdoch wants a commission for every time someone mentions his name or talks about any of his companies , or anything people saw on TV.Murdoch argues... " I do n't see why people think that they can talk about something I created and own .
How dare people shoot the sh * t off of my back ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in other news, Murdoch wants a commission for every time someone mentions his name or talks about any of his companies, or anything people saw on TV.Murdoch argues... "I don't see why people think that they can talk about something I created and own.
How dare people shoot the sh*t off of my back?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043306</id>
	<title>Better off without him</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1257845760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I favour censorship, but I think the Internet would be a better place *without* Murdochs "newspapers".<br>I would be happy for Google to not return results from his sites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I favour censorship , but I think the Internet would be a better place * without * Murdochs " newspapers " .I would be happy for Google to not return results from his sites : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I favour censorship, but I think the Internet would be a better place *without* Murdochs "newspapers".I would be happy for Google to not return results from his sites :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041578</id>
	<title>Re:Rephrase what he wants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257780240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a department store. It probably carries a lot of merchandise. But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door.</p></div><p>Doesn't that mostly describe costco? I definitely prefer costco over wal-mart...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a department store .
It probably carries a lot of merchandise .
But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door.Does n't that mostly describe costco ?
I definitely prefer costco over wal-mart.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a department store.
It probably carries a lot of merchandise.
But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door.Doesn't that mostly describe costco?
I definitely prefer costco over wal-mart...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039950</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1257769440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are talking about a man with an ego that demands if a mountain blocks his path, the mountain be removed. What he knows is he doesn't give a fig what he can do on his side, he wants it to be on their heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are talking about a man with an ego that demands if a mountain blocks his path , the mountain be removed .
What he knows is he does n't give a fig what he can do on his side , he wants it to be on their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are talking about a man with an ego that demands if a mountain blocks his path, the mountain be removed.
What he knows is he doesn't give a fig what he can do on his side, he wants it to be on their heads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041640</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257780840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"loyal"</p><p>I think the word you were looking for was "stupid"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" loyal " I think the word you were looking for was " stupid "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"loyal"I think the word you were looking for was "stupid"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041294</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>jweller</author>
	<datestamp>1257777960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actualy, I think the small town local newspaper has a decent chance of attracting pay subscriptions. There are hundereds of sites I can go to if I want to read about President Obamas state of the union address, but there aren't many places I can go to to find coverage of the Mayoral race in Annapolis Md. If I want to know the scores in the NFL, thats easy, but what happened in local High School football?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actualy , I think the small town local newspaper has a decent chance of attracting pay subscriptions .
There are hundereds of sites I can go to if I want to read about President Obamas state of the union address , but there are n't many places I can go to to find coverage of the Mayoral race in Annapolis Md .
If I want to know the scores in the NFL , thats easy , but what happened in local High School football ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actualy, I think the small town local newspaper has a decent chance of attracting pay subscriptions.
There are hundereds of sites I can go to if I want to read about President Obamas state of the union address, but there aren't many places I can go to to find coverage of the Mayoral race in Annapolis Md.
If I want to know the scores in the NFL, thats easy, but what happened in local High School football?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044212</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1257858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All he wants is a t&#234;te-&#224;-t&#234;te with Sergey Brin and Larry Page so that he can talk with them about our faith and the future of mass media. Almost every influential politician has granted him that. Sergey and Larry are just the new kids on the block and they better pay him some respect if they want to become members of the club!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All he wants is a t   te-   -t   te with Sergey Brin and Larry Page so that he can talk with them about our faith and the future of mass media .
Almost every influential politician has granted him that .
Sergey and Larry are just the new kids on the block and they better pay him some respect if they want to become members of the club !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All he wants is a tête-à-tête with Sergey Brin and Larry Page so that he can talk with them about our faith and the future of mass media.
Almost every influential politician has granted him that.
Sergey and Larry are just the new kids on the block and they better pay him some respect if they want to become members of the club!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30078652</id>
	<title>Why nobody has asked him yet about robots.txt</title>
	<author>Koos</author>
	<datestamp>1258019340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too wondered "why hasn't anybody asked Mr. Murdoch about web standards for blocking bots like google", and asked such a question to the BBC who wrote the original article. The answer is simple: only news organizations like sky and fox news get the chance to interview him, and for some reason they never get around to asking questions like these that would not fit the views that Mr. Murdoch wants published as news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too wondered " why has n't anybody asked Mr. Murdoch about web standards for blocking bots like google " , and asked such a question to the BBC who wrote the original article .
The answer is simple : only news organizations like sky and fox news get the chance to interview him , and for some reason they never get around to asking questions like these that would not fit the views that Mr. Murdoch wants published as news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too wondered "why hasn't anybody asked Mr. Murdoch about web standards for blocking bots like google", and asked such a question to the BBC who wrote the original article.
The answer is simple: only news organizations like sky and fox news get the chance to interview him, and for some reason they never get around to asking questions like these that would not fit the views that Mr. Murdoch wants published as news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039974</id>
	<title>The last angry twitches of a dieing media format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newspapers are a dieing media. The time when everyone pays for a subscription to get yesterdays news is over. This is just the frustration of a billionaire watching his format die. If he was willing to adapt and embrace new media then he would find new ways to make money. To bad, we need good journalists in new media, not stuck in the past with angry old men.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers are a dieing media .
The time when everyone pays for a subscription to get yesterdays news is over .
This is just the frustration of a billionaire watching his format die .
If he was willing to adapt and embrace new media then he would find new ways to make money .
To bad , we need good journalists in new media , not stuck in the past with angry old men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers are a dieing media.
The time when everyone pays for a subscription to get yesterdays news is over.
This is just the frustration of a billionaire watching his format die.
If he was willing to adapt and embrace new media then he would find new ways to make money.
To bad, we need good journalists in new media, not stuck in the past with angry old men.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041664</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1257781140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just looked at the Fox News site main page and visited all their top news stories accessable from the front page.
</p><ul>
<li>#1, "Iran Accuses 3 Detained American Hikers of Spying"
Footnote: "The Associated Press contributed to this report".</li>

<li>#2  "China Executes 9 Uighurs Over Ethnic Riots"
 "Associated Press" logo at the top of the article, based on a Chinese state news report, with additional info presumably added by AP.</li>

<li>#3 , Chavez<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... AP article, photo credited to AP/Miraflores Press Office</li>

<li>#4 Obama/Netanyahu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... AP. Photo credited to AP</li>

<li>#5 Abortion doctor story. Associated Press logo, AP credit on photograph.</li>

<li>#6 PC virus story. AP logo, AP photo credit</li>

<li>#7 Gov Rell. short factual account, AP on story header (but as text this time, not as a logo).</li>

<li>#8 Legendary lost Persian army found in Sahara. Short version of an original Discovery News story (linked). According to Wikipedia, DN don't seem to be a Murdoch company.</li>

<li>#9 Hurricane Ida. AP logo on story header, but graphic credited to MyFoxHurricane.com . Finally, some original Murdoch organisation content! Hooray!</li>

<li>#10 Woman shot to death. Associated Press.</li>
</ul><p>


So out of their top ten stories, nine are either pure AP stories or edited from AP stories, and one comes from the Discovery News website.
</p><p>
Total identifiable original Murdoch content: one hurricane graphic from a Fox organisation hurricane-tracking site (which Fox News forgot to link to).
</p><p>
No identifiable "Murdoch press" journalistic content.
</p><p>
Completing the list:
</p><p>
#11 was AP, #12 was credited to FoxBusiness.com (a Murdoch journalism hit! Wahey!), #13 was AP, #14 was AP, #15, finally, was a Fox News piece on the Mclaren buggy recall, with a bold <b>FOXNEWS</b> logo and a photo provided by Mclaren.
#16 was AP.
</p><p>
So from their "most read" list, Fox News only have one story out of the sixteen that they actually wrote themselves.
</p><p>
Associated Press are a news syndication company (like Reuters), who supply news content to media outlets. This lets news companies supplement the content produced by their own journalists with ready-made stories that they can just slot into place as padding.
</p><p>
Given that the clear majority of FoxNews' top stories on this page (nearly 90\%) were actually bought in from AP, and that Google News also subscribe to AP as a content provider to buy stories, it's not surprising that when both sites rank their content by popularity, if Murdoch looks at the Sky News page and compares it to the Google News page, he's going to see a lot of the same top-ranking stories on both sites.
</p><p>
But this doesn't necessarily mean that Google News are stealing stories from Fox News Journalists, or stealing the selection. Both sites are buying content from AP, and the site viewers are dictating the popularities, not the editors.
</p><p>
I don't know whether this means that FoxNews.com don't actually do much journalism themselves, and mainly act as aggregators (like Google News)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or whether it means that they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/do/ do a fair bit of journalism, but that their readership simply prefers the AP material that can be gotten from Google News anyway.
</p><p>
Either way, I can see why RM is concerned. Shouting that Google is stealing their stories kinda stops people noticing that, for Fox News, their own site statistics say that most of their most popular stories aren't actually theirs anyway. One out of sixteen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just looked at the Fox News site main page and visited all their top news stories accessable from the front page .
# 1 , " Iran Accuses 3 Detained American Hikers of Spying " Footnote : " The Associated Press contributed to this report " .
# 2 " China Executes 9 Uighurs Over Ethnic Riots " " Associated Press " logo at the top of the article , based on a Chinese state news report , with additional info presumably added by AP .
# 3 , Chavez ... AP article , photo credited to AP/Miraflores Press Office # 4 Obama/Netanyahu ... AP. Photo credited to AP # 5 Abortion doctor story .
Associated Press logo , AP credit on photograph .
# 6 PC virus story .
AP logo , AP photo credit # 7 Gov Rell .
short factual account , AP on story header ( but as text this time , not as a logo ) .
# 8 Legendary lost Persian army found in Sahara .
Short version of an original Discovery News story ( linked ) .
According to Wikipedia , DN do n't seem to be a Murdoch company .
# 9 Hurricane Ida .
AP logo on story header , but graphic credited to MyFoxHurricane.com .
Finally , some original Murdoch organisation content !
Hooray ! # 10 Woman shot to death .
Associated Press .
So out of their top ten stories , nine are either pure AP stories or edited from AP stories , and one comes from the Discovery News website .
Total identifiable original Murdoch content : one hurricane graphic from a Fox organisation hurricane-tracking site ( which Fox News forgot to link to ) .
No identifiable " Murdoch press " journalistic content .
Completing the list : # 11 was AP , # 12 was credited to FoxBusiness.com ( a Murdoch journalism hit !
Wahey ! ) , # 13 was AP , # 14 was AP , # 15 , finally , was a Fox News piece on the Mclaren buggy recall , with a bold FOXNEWS logo and a photo provided by Mclaren .
# 16 was AP .
So from their " most read " list , Fox News only have one story out of the sixteen that they actually wrote themselves .
Associated Press are a news syndication company ( like Reuters ) , who supply news content to media outlets .
This lets news companies supplement the content produced by their own journalists with ready-made stories that they can just slot into place as padding .
Given that the clear majority of FoxNews ' top stories on this page ( nearly 90 \ % ) were actually bought in from AP , and that Google News also subscribe to AP as a content provider to buy stories , it 's not surprising that when both sites rank their content by popularity , if Murdoch looks at the Sky News page and compares it to the Google News page , he 's going to see a lot of the same top-ranking stories on both sites .
But this does n't necessarily mean that Google News are stealing stories from Fox News Journalists , or stealing the selection .
Both sites are buying content from AP , and the site viewers are dictating the popularities , not the editors .
I do n't know whether this means that FoxNews.com do n't actually do much journalism themselves , and mainly act as aggregators ( like Google News ) ... or whether it means that they /do/ do a fair bit of journalism , but that their readership simply prefers the AP material that can be gotten from Google News anyway .
Either way , I can see why RM is concerned .
Shouting that Google is stealing their stories kinda stops people noticing that , for Fox News , their own site statistics say that most of their most popular stories are n't actually theirs anyway .
One out of sixteen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just looked at the Fox News site main page and visited all their top news stories accessable from the front page.
#1, "Iran Accuses 3 Detained American Hikers of Spying"
Footnote: "The Associated Press contributed to this report".
#2  "China Executes 9 Uighurs Over Ethnic Riots"
 "Associated Press" logo at the top of the article, based on a Chinese state news report, with additional info presumably added by AP.
#3 , Chavez ... AP article, photo credited to AP/Miraflores Press Office

#4 Obama/Netanyahu ... AP. Photo credited to AP

#5 Abortion doctor story.
Associated Press logo, AP credit on photograph.
#6 PC virus story.
AP logo, AP photo credit

#7 Gov Rell.
short factual account, AP on story header (but as text this time, not as a logo).
#8 Legendary lost Persian army found in Sahara.
Short version of an original Discovery News story (linked).
According to Wikipedia, DN don't seem to be a Murdoch company.
#9 Hurricane Ida.
AP logo on story header, but graphic credited to MyFoxHurricane.com .
Finally, some original Murdoch organisation content!
Hooray!

#10 Woman shot to death.
Associated Press.
So out of their top ten stories, nine are either pure AP stories or edited from AP stories, and one comes from the Discovery News website.
Total identifiable original Murdoch content: one hurricane graphic from a Fox organisation hurricane-tracking site (which Fox News forgot to link to).
No identifiable "Murdoch press" journalistic content.
Completing the list:

#11 was AP, #12 was credited to FoxBusiness.com (a Murdoch journalism hit!
Wahey!), #13 was AP, #14 was AP, #15, finally, was a Fox News piece on the Mclaren buggy recall, with a bold FOXNEWS logo and a photo provided by Mclaren.
#16 was AP.
So from their "most read" list, Fox News only have one story out of the sixteen that they actually wrote themselves.
Associated Press are a news syndication company (like Reuters), who supply news content to media outlets.
This lets news companies supplement the content produced by their own journalists with ready-made stories that they can just slot into place as padding.
Given that the clear majority of FoxNews' top stories on this page (nearly 90\%) were actually bought in from AP, and that Google News also subscribe to AP as a content provider to buy stories, it's not surprising that when both sites rank their content by popularity, if Murdoch looks at the Sky News page and compares it to the Google News page, he's going to see a lot of the same top-ranking stories on both sites.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that Google News are stealing stories from Fox News Journalists, or stealing the selection.
Both sites are buying content from AP, and the site viewers are dictating the popularities, not the editors.
I don't know whether this means that FoxNews.com don't actually do much journalism themselves, and mainly act as aggregators (like Google News) ... or whether it means that they /do/ do a fair bit of journalism, but that their readership simply prefers the AP material that can be gotten from Google News anyway.
Either way, I can see why RM is concerned.
Shouting that Google is stealing their stories kinda stops people noticing that, for Fox News, their own site statistics say that most of their most popular stories aren't actually theirs anyway.
One out of sixteen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040206</id>
	<title>Better yet</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1257770640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?</i> <br> <br>Sometimes, but other times I do visit it.  Now if the search result <b>does not have surrounding text</b> then I just don't bother with that link at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ?
Sometimes , but other times I do visit it .
Now if the search result does not have surrounding text then I just do n't bother with that link at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?
Sometimes, but other times I do visit it.
Now if the search result does not have surrounding text then I just don't bother with that link at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041088</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257775980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish him ill, *because* he's still acting like this at age 78. It ties in to those other articles about CEOs and sociopaths.</p><p>Even as a bitter old man, Murdoch still feels he has to 'win' any everything, whether it's true or not, no matter who gets destroyed in the process... and his medium for doing this is the news? Despicable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish him ill , * because * he 's still acting like this at age 78 .
It ties in to those other articles about CEOs and sociopaths.Even as a bitter old man , Murdoch still feels he has to 'win ' any everything , whether it 's true or not , no matter who gets destroyed in the process... and his medium for doing this is the news ?
Despicable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish him ill, *because* he's still acting like this at age 78.
It ties in to those other articles about CEOs and sociopaths.Even as a bitter old man, Murdoch still feels he has to 'win' any everything, whether it's true or not, no matter who gets destroyed in the process... and his medium for doing this is the news?
Despicable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044532</id>
	<title>News 2.1</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1257862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world still needs journalists, but we don't need them to do the same things they've always done.  The internet has changed a lot of that.</p><p>We don't need journalists to do as much original "breaking" news reporting.  They've got a billion pair of eyes that can be used to do that, courtesy the internet.  I'm imagining a news agency that replaces most of its reporting staff with a social network of 100,000 "cub reporters" who feed stories and leads to a professional staff of researchers, writers, and editors.  Cub reporters earn nothing more than a byline -- and maybe a shot at joining the ranks of the pros.  They'd be "developed", just like a minor league player -- give 'em some training, assign them a mentor, feed them an assignment to go hunt something down and report in.</p><p>I would pay a lot for an fast-moving but authoritative source of news that was demonstrably unbiased (like C-SPAN, bless its geeky 'lil heart.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world still needs journalists , but we do n't need them to do the same things they 've always done .
The internet has changed a lot of that.We do n't need journalists to do as much original " breaking " news reporting .
They 've got a billion pair of eyes that can be used to do that , courtesy the internet .
I 'm imagining a news agency that replaces most of its reporting staff with a social network of 100,000 " cub reporters " who feed stories and leads to a professional staff of researchers , writers , and editors .
Cub reporters earn nothing more than a byline -- and maybe a shot at joining the ranks of the pros .
They 'd be " developed " , just like a minor league player -- give 'em some training , assign them a mentor , feed them an assignment to go hunt something down and report in.I would pay a lot for an fast-moving but authoritative source of news that was demonstrably unbiased ( like C-SPAN , bless its geeky 'lil heart .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world still needs journalists, but we don't need them to do the same things they've always done.
The internet has changed a lot of that.We don't need journalists to do as much original "breaking" news reporting.
They've got a billion pair of eyes that can be used to do that, courtesy the internet.
I'm imagining a news agency that replaces most of its reporting staff with a social network of 100,000 "cub reporters" who feed stories and leads to a professional staff of researchers, writers, and editors.
Cub reporters earn nothing more than a byline -- and maybe a shot at joining the ranks of the pros.
They'd be "developed", just like a minor league player -- give 'em some training, assign them a mentor, feed them an assignment to go hunt something down and report in.I would pay a lot for an fast-moving but authoritative source of news that was demonstrably unbiased (like C-SPAN, bless its geeky 'lil heart.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040340</id>
	<title>Yay for robots.txt</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1257771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wants to read Murdoch's bilge anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to read Murdoch 's bilge anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to read Murdoch's bilge anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043788</id>
	<title>Re:You guys are smarter than this</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257853080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was the boss of google I would cut out the indexing to Murdoch media instantly and then watch him cry...<br>No one would really notice if no search results ot Murdoch media would be displayed but Murdochs page hits and ad revenue would<br>make a nosedive (usually about 60\% of the average page traffic comes directly from Google the rest is other search engines (about 5\%) and recurring users)<br>Id say beat him where it hits him hardest, in his "holy" wallet, this guy does not understand any other language.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was the boss of google I would cut out the indexing to Murdoch media instantly and then watch him cry...No one would really notice if no search results ot Murdoch media would be displayed but Murdochs page hits and ad revenue wouldmake a nosedive ( usually about 60 \ % of the average page traffic comes directly from Google the rest is other search engines ( about 5 \ % ) and recurring users ) Id say beat him where it hits him hardest , in his " holy " wallet , this guy does not understand any other language .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was the boss of google I would cut out the indexing to Murdoch media instantly and then watch him cry...No one would really notice if no search results ot Murdoch media would be displayed but Murdochs page hits and ad revenue wouldmake a nosedive (usually about 60\% of the average page traffic comes directly from Google the rest is other search engines (about 5\%) and recurring users)Id say beat him where it hits him hardest, in his "holy" wallet, this guy does not understand any other language.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040378</id>
	<title>Re:Rephrase what he wants</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257771480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cute analogy - except, it's not even his stuff.</p><p>Murdoch does not "create" anything (propaganda aside). He's only "reporting" things that happen. Guess what... other people can do that too. "News" reporting is a dying art and rightly so. Back in the day, no one knew what was happening in Zimbabwe. You had to pay a professional team to fly there (or take a boat, a couple centuries ago). They would "report" the current events and either mail, telegraph, telex or eventually send the "story" in through radio or a satellite TV link. All of this cost money, and news companies had to sell a lot of advertising to cover costs.</p><p>But guess what? Times have changed. Now anyone with a cell phone and internet access can provide "breaking news". How often do I see CNN or other "news" channels showing the EXACT same video that was on LiveLeak. Except of course they "blur out" the LiveLeak logo (yeah, you try and do that to THEIR content and see how many lawyers you get on your ass). Frankly there's no value in "syndicated" news anymore. Firstly, they're almost always behind the internet, secondly, their reporting is always biased, and thirdly - I really don't want to watch the damned ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cute analogy - except , it 's not even his stuff.Murdoch does not " create " anything ( propaganda aside ) .
He 's only " reporting " things that happen .
Guess what... other people can do that too .
" News " reporting is a dying art and rightly so .
Back in the day , no one knew what was happening in Zimbabwe .
You had to pay a professional team to fly there ( or take a boat , a couple centuries ago ) .
They would " report " the current events and either mail , telegraph , telex or eventually send the " story " in through radio or a satellite TV link .
All of this cost money , and news companies had to sell a lot of advertising to cover costs.But guess what ?
Times have changed .
Now anyone with a cell phone and internet access can provide " breaking news " .
How often do I see CNN or other " news " channels showing the EXACT same video that was on LiveLeak .
Except of course they " blur out " the LiveLeak logo ( yeah , you try and do that to THEIR content and see how many lawyers you get on your ass ) .
Frankly there 's no value in " syndicated " news anymore .
Firstly , they 're almost always behind the internet , secondly , their reporting is always biased , and thirdly - I really do n't want to watch the damned ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cute analogy - except, it's not even his stuff.Murdoch does not "create" anything (propaganda aside).
He's only "reporting" things that happen.
Guess what... other people can do that too.
"News" reporting is a dying art and rightly so.
Back in the day, no one knew what was happening in Zimbabwe.
You had to pay a professional team to fly there (or take a boat, a couple centuries ago).
They would "report" the current events and either mail, telegraph, telex or eventually send the "story" in through radio or a satellite TV link.
All of this cost money, and news companies had to sell a lot of advertising to cover costs.But guess what?
Times have changed.
Now anyone with a cell phone and internet access can provide "breaking news".
How often do I see CNN or other "news" channels showing the EXACT same video that was on LiveLeak.
Except of course they "blur out" the LiveLeak logo (yeah, you try and do that to THEIR content and see how many lawyers you get on your ass).
Frankly there's no value in "syndicated" news anymore.
Firstly, they're almost always behind the internet, secondly, their reporting is always biased, and thirdly - I really don't want to watch the damned ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043482</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the world doesn't work like that anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the world does n't work like that anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the world doesn't work like that anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039836</id>
	<title>Weinstein's take on it</title>
	<author>thatseattleguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257768960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worth reading Lauren Weinstein's blog post take on this - trenchantly dead-on, as usual:</p><p>Murdoch's Folly: Block Google &amp; Kill Fair Use -- Plus a Nasty Truth<br><a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000633.html" title="vortex.com">http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000633.html</a> [vortex.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worth reading Lauren Weinstein 's blog post take on this - trenchantly dead-on , as usual : Murdoch 's Folly : Block Google &amp; Kill Fair Use -- Plus a Nasty Truthhttp : //lauren.vortex.com/archive/000633.html [ vortex.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worth reading Lauren Weinstein's blog post take on this - trenchantly dead-on, as usual:Murdoch's Folly: Block Google &amp; Kill Fair Use -- Plus a Nasty Truthhttp://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000633.html [vortex.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040464</id>
	<title>There are a lot of paranoid ideas here</title>
	<author>andrew554</author>
	<datestamp>1257771960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About how it&rsquo;s a devious masterstroke beyond our ken.</p><p>But I say: never attribute to malice what can be explained by advanced syphilis of the BRAIN.</p><p>Seriously, when I read this it was all I could do not to point at my screen and say "heeah, heeah" in the style of Nelson from The Simpsons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About how it    s a devious masterstroke beyond our ken.But I say : never attribute to malice what can be explained by advanced syphilis of the BRAIN.Seriously , when I read this it was all I could do not to point at my screen and say " heeah , heeah " in the style of Nelson from The Simpsons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About how it’s a devious masterstroke beyond our ken.But I say: never attribute to malice what can be explained by advanced syphilis of the BRAIN.Seriously, when I read this it was all I could do not to point at my screen and say "heeah, heeah" in the style of Nelson from The Simpsons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052108</id>
	<title>This just in!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fox news reporters are now banned from using Google as a reference.  They now use Bing!   lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fox news reporters are now banned from using Google as a reference .
They now use Bing !
lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fox news reporters are now banned from using Google as a reference.
They now use Bing!
lol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30046102</id>
	<title>Re:The reason he wants to do this</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1257870960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Who knows who they are or where they are. They don't suddenly become loyal readers of our content." </i></p><p>That says more about the laughable quality of the content.</p><p>I mean, I remember the first time I came across xkcd. I became a loyal reader.<br>I remember the first time I came across PVP and Penny Arcade. Crooksandliars.com and aintitcoolnews.com Dailykos, theRegister, slashdot. etc...</p><p>Loyal readers will go where they find good content, worth reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who knows who they are or where they are .
They do n't suddenly become loyal readers of our content .
" That says more about the laughable quality of the content.I mean , I remember the first time I came across xkcd .
I became a loyal reader.I remember the first time I came across PVP and Penny Arcade .
Crooksandliars.com and aintitcoolnews.com Dailykos , theRegister , slashdot .
etc...Loyal readers will go where they find good content , worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Who knows who they are or where they are.
They don't suddenly become loyal readers of our content.
" That says more about the laughable quality of the content.I mean, I remember the first time I came across xkcd.
I became a loyal reader.I remember the first time I came across PVP and Penny Arcade.
Crooksandliars.com and aintitcoolnews.com Dailykos, theRegister, slashdot.
etc...Loyal readers will go where they find good content, worth reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040450</id>
	<title>murdoch, enuf said</title>
	<author>MoFoQ</author>
	<datestamp>1257771840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's Murdoch...or maybe it should be Murdouch(e).</p><p>Either way, I don't think he realizes that blocking search engines would spell a death-sentence to websites as it will kill off the steady flow of traffic to his websites and his competitors who don't block SEs will grow as they get more hits and advertisers in turn go to them.<br>In a dog-eat-dog, ultra-competitive market as it is....this just might spell the end of Fox News and its associates (I'm sure the words "good riddance" were muttered by a boatload of Slashdot regulars)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's Murdoch...or maybe it should be Murdouch ( e ) .Either way , I do n't think he realizes that blocking search engines would spell a death-sentence to websites as it will kill off the steady flow of traffic to his websites and his competitors who do n't block SEs will grow as they get more hits and advertisers in turn go to them.In a dog-eat-dog , ultra-competitive market as it is....this just might spell the end of Fox News and its associates ( I 'm sure the words " good riddance " were muttered by a boatload of Slashdot regulars )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's Murdoch...or maybe it should be Murdouch(e).Either way, I don't think he realizes that blocking search engines would spell a death-sentence to websites as it will kill off the steady flow of traffic to his websites and his competitors who don't block SEs will grow as they get more hits and advertisers in turn go to them.In a dog-eat-dog, ultra-competitive market as it is....this just might spell the end of Fox News and its associates (I'm sure the words "good riddance" were muttered by a boatload of Slashdot regulars)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832</id>
	<title>This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>fandingo</author>
	<datestamp>1257768900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the slash-tards think everything is fair use, but this has nothing to do with it. It has to do with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_News\_Service\_v.\_Associated\_Press" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_News\_Service\_v.\_Associated\_Press</a> [wikipedia.org] The term is called "hot news." The ruling basically states that you can't copyright the facts with current events.</p><p>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement. It's an extenuating circumstance. On the other hand, Google has not engaged in copyright infringement because the articles themselves are not copyrightable in the short-term -- as the events are happening. They do not need to use a fair use because the headlines/summaries they are copying are not under copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the slash-tards think everything is fair use , but this has nothing to do with it .
It has to do with http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International \ _News \ _Service \ _v. \ _Associated \ _Press [ wikipedia.org ] The term is called " hot news .
" The ruling basically states that you ca n't copyright the facts with current events.Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement .
It 's an extenuating circumstance .
On the other hand , Google has not engaged in copyright infringement because the articles themselves are not copyrightable in the short-term -- as the events are happening .
They do not need to use a fair use because the headlines/summaries they are copying are not under copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the slash-tards think everything is fair use, but this has nothing to do with it.
It has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_News\_Service\_v.\_Associated\_Press [wikipedia.org] The term is called "hot news.
" The ruling basically states that you can't copyright the facts with current events.Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement.
It's an extenuating circumstance.
On the other hand, Google has not engaged in copyright infringement because the articles themselves are not copyrightable in the short-term -- as the events are happening.
They do not need to use a fair use because the headlines/summaries they are copying are not under copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041492</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257779520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is usually actually my goal when looking things up in google.  If I can possibly avoid sifting through a bunch of pages for a quick factoid, I'll gladly spend a few more seconds getting my query just right so that I can just read the information I wanted without leaving google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is usually actually my goal when looking things up in google .
If I can possibly avoid sifting through a bunch of pages for a quick factoid , I 'll gladly spend a few more seconds getting my query just right so that I can just read the information I wanted without leaving google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is usually actually my goal when looking things up in google.
If I can possibly avoid sifting through a bunch of pages for a quick factoid, I'll gladly spend a few more seconds getting my query just right so that I can just read the information I wanted without leaving google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040968</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257775020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only contention Rupert Murdoch has with his senior staff is when they ask "How high?", when Rupert says "Jump!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only contention Rupert Murdoch has with his senior staff is when they ask " How high ?
" , when Rupert says " Jump !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only contention Rupert Murdoch has with his senior staff is when they ask "How high?
", when Rupert says "Jump!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042412</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1257789600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't see why google just doesn't stop indexing their stuff for a while</p></div></blockquote><p>

Because it's not Google having the problem here, its Murdoch. Yes Rupert is just looking for a cut of Google's profit but unless Google receive a court order they shouldn't do anything that would make Google a belligerent party and give Murdoch and excuse to sue.<br> <br>

Right now, Murdoch can complain all he wants, all Google as to do is say "use Robots.txt if you don't like it" and Murdoch has no leg to stand on as he's been given a means to opt out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why google just does n't stop indexing their stuff for a while Because it 's not Google having the problem here , its Murdoch .
Yes Rupert is just looking for a cut of Google 's profit but unless Google receive a court order they should n't do anything that would make Google a belligerent party and give Murdoch and excuse to sue .
Right now , Murdoch can complain all he wants , all Google as to do is say " use Robots.txt if you do n't like it " and Murdoch has no leg to stand on as he 's been given a means to opt out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why google just doesn't stop indexing their stuff for a while

Because it's not Google having the problem here, its Murdoch.
Yes Rupert is just looking for a cut of Google's profit but unless Google receive a court order they shouldn't do anything that would make Google a belligerent party and give Murdoch and excuse to sue.
Right now, Murdoch can complain all he wants, all Google as to do is say "use Robots.txt if you don't like it" and Murdoch has no leg to stand on as he's been given a means to opt out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1257769380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He knows about robots.txt.</p><p>See this story (On one of his own sites): <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html</a> [foxnews.com] where it is mentioned.</p><p>Paid subscriptions is his plan.</p><p>He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis.  But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.</p><p>So its all talk.  He knows it would be suicidal to make this move alone, and is trying to drum up support among all the big news providers.</p><p>But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.</p><p>The world has changed, and Rupert still thinks he's selling newspapers on the corner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He knows about robots.txt.See this story ( On one of his own sites ) : http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html [ foxnews.com ] where it is mentioned.Paid subscriptions is his plan.He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis .
But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.So its all talk .
He knows it would be suicidal to make this move alone , and is trying to drum up support among all the big news providers.But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line , because Google would simply index those remaining free providers , which often provide a more complete story anyway.The world has changed , and Rupert still thinks he 's selling newspapers on the corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He knows about robots.txt.See this story (On one of his own sites): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html [foxnews.com] where it is mentioned.Paid subscriptions is his plan.He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis.
But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.So its all talk.
He knows it would be suicidal to make this move alone, and is trying to drum up support among all the big news providers.But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.The world has changed, and Rupert still thinks he's selling newspapers on the corner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052096</id>
	<title>Summary fail</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1257850320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to block much of Google's ability to scan and index his news sites."</p><p>This is not what the linked article says. Rupert Murdoch may be a douchebag, but don't adopt his "news" organization's penchant for distortion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to block much of Google 's ability to scan and index his news sites .
" This is not what the linked article says .
Rupert Murdoch may be a douchebag , but do n't adopt his " news " organization 's penchant for distortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to block much of Google's ability to scan and index his news sites.
"This is not what the linked article says.
Rupert Murdoch may be a douchebag, but don't adopt his "news" organization's penchant for distortion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040630</id>
	<title>This is what Murdoch needs to do...</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1257772980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we can sum up this whole thread by giving Murdoch this suggestion:</p><p>User-agent: * Disallow: /</p><p>Maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. should start a campaign that barrages news corps sites with that, and then they would get the picture....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we can sum up this whole thread by giving Murdoch this suggestion : User-agent : * Disallow : /Maybe / .
should start a campaign that barrages news corps sites with that , and then they would get the picture... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we can sum up this whole thread by giving Murdoch this suggestion:User-agent: * Disallow: /Maybe /.
should start a campaign that barrages news corps sites with that, and then they would get the picture....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040792</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257773880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, if Google did that, they might be subject to an anti-trust lawsuit from NewsCorp for monopolistic abuse. Google's got the right idea, call Murdoch's bluff. However they should be taking a more proactive PR approach in countering Murdoch's propaganda painting Google as the big bad IP abuser. I think a 35 second advert that shows the 5 line robots.txt file that would block Google indexing, with an appropriate voice-over would be enough. 15 seconds of Murdoch and Fox talking heads slamming Google's "IP violation", 15 seconds with the file and a warm deep voice saying "All News corp needs to do to stop Google's fair use indexing of their content is to include this text file in the root of their web sites. They don't do it because they know they gain from being in the Google index. Instead, News Corp wants Google to pay for providing that benefit to News Corp. How is that fair?".</p><p>Now here's the kicker. Don't pay News Corp to place the adverts on their network or news sites. If client-side cookies are enabled, track and insert it once per month for each machine that follows a Google link to a News Corp web site, chaining to the news corp site after the informative message. Provide the customary bypass option button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , if Google did that , they might be subject to an anti-trust lawsuit from NewsCorp for monopolistic abuse .
Google 's got the right idea , call Murdoch 's bluff .
However they should be taking a more proactive PR approach in countering Murdoch 's propaganda painting Google as the big bad IP abuser .
I think a 35 second advert that shows the 5 line robots.txt file that would block Google indexing , with an appropriate voice-over would be enough .
15 seconds of Murdoch and Fox talking heads slamming Google 's " IP violation " , 15 seconds with the file and a warm deep voice saying " All News corp needs to do to stop Google 's fair use indexing of their content is to include this text file in the root of their web sites .
They do n't do it because they know they gain from being in the Google index .
Instead , News Corp wants Google to pay for providing that benefit to News Corp. How is that fair ?
" .Now here 's the kicker .
Do n't pay News Corp to place the adverts on their network or news sites .
If client-side cookies are enabled , track and insert it once per month for each machine that follows a Google link to a News Corp web site , chaining to the news corp site after the informative message .
Provide the customary bypass option button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, if Google did that, they might be subject to an anti-trust lawsuit from NewsCorp for monopolistic abuse.
Google's got the right idea, call Murdoch's bluff.
However they should be taking a more proactive PR approach in countering Murdoch's propaganda painting Google as the big bad IP abuser.
I think a 35 second advert that shows the 5 line robots.txt file that would block Google indexing, with an appropriate voice-over would be enough.
15 seconds of Murdoch and Fox talking heads slamming Google's "IP violation", 15 seconds with the file and a warm deep voice saying "All News corp needs to do to stop Google's fair use indexing of their content is to include this text file in the root of their web sites.
They don't do it because they know they gain from being in the Google index.
Instead, News Corp wants Google to pay for providing that benefit to News Corp. How is that fair?
".Now here's the kicker.
Don't pay News Corp to place the adverts on their network or news sites.
If client-side cookies are enabled, track and insert it once per month for each machine that follows a Google link to a News Corp web site, chaining to the news corp site after the informative message.
Provide the customary bypass option button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040658</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1257773160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what he really is hoping that all the other newspapers/news outlets will rally behind him on this. He's not stupid, he knows if he does this and no one else does, then he's screwed. And he can't really call all of them up and say "let's do this", because then that would be collusion. I think when he's talking about this openly, he's hoping that a few other news outlets will come out publicly and say they are going to do this too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what he really is hoping that all the other newspapers/news outlets will rally behind him on this .
He 's not stupid , he knows if he does this and no one else does , then he 's screwed .
And he ca n't really call all of them up and say " let 's do this " , because then that would be collusion .
I think when he 's talking about this openly , he 's hoping that a few other news outlets will come out publicly and say they are going to do this too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what he really is hoping that all the other newspapers/news outlets will rally behind him on this.
He's not stupid, he knows if he does this and no one else does, then he's screwed.
And he can't really call all of them up and say "let's do this", because then that would be collusion.
I think when he's talking about this openly, he's hoping that a few other news outlets will come out publicly and say they are going to do this too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044448</id>
	<title>Go ahead, Google!</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1257861420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wish Google would proactively dump all Fox 'News' content.  I gave up on Google News long ago as most of their political stories sport the propagandistic headlines knitted on Fox hate machines.  I never could decide if Google is clueless to Fox gaming their system or if Google actually prefers incendiary headlines regardless of how untrue they may be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish Google would proactively dump all Fox 'News ' content .
I gave up on Google News long ago as most of their political stories sport the propagandistic headlines knitted on Fox hate machines .
I never could decide if Google is clueless to Fox gaming their system or if Google actually prefers incendiary headlines regardless of how untrue they may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish Google would proactively dump all Fox 'News' content.
I gave up on Google News long ago as most of their political stories sport the propagandistic headlines knitted on Fox hate machines.
I never could decide if Google is clueless to Fox gaming their system or if Google actually prefers incendiary headlines regardless of how untrue they may be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040054</id>
	<title>challenged</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257769920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Murdoch believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results.</i></p><p>Indeed, they can't, without Murdoch's permission.  Lucky for Google that Murdoch grants them permission in their robots.txt.</p><p><i>'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,'</i></p><p>"We"?  As in the "royal we"?  Challenged by who?  On what grounds?</p><p>The only thing that seems to be "challenged" here is Murdoch's intellect and ethics.  Well, actually, it's beyond "challenged", it's just rotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Murdoch believes that search engines can not legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results.Indeed , they ca n't , without Murdoch 's permission .
Lucky for Google that Murdoch grants them permission in their robots.txt .
'There 's a doctrine called " fair use , " which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether, ' " We " ?
As in the " royal we " ?
Challenged by who ?
On what grounds ? The only thing that seems to be " challenged " here is Murdoch 's intellect and ethics .
Well , actually , it 's beyond " challenged " , it 's just rotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Murdoch believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results.Indeed, they can't, without Murdoch's permission.
Lucky for Google that Murdoch grants them permission in their robots.txt.
'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,'"We"?
As in the "royal we"?
Challenged by who?
On what grounds?The only thing that seems to be "challenged" here is Murdoch's intellect and ethics.
Well, actually, it's beyond "challenged", it's just rotten.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040724</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257773520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Cache, too.</p><p>Although, I wonder if Google can add support for more specific indexing. For example - if that site doesn't want text content to show in search results - they could specify that in the Robots.txt. Taking this further - if they wanted the search results headline to look different (truncated, for example) than the actual headline (while still using the full, real headline for searches so SEO doesnt break),  then they could also specify this in Robots.txt. Obviously, this specific example may not work, but I think technology can successful solve this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Cache , too.Although , I wonder if Google can add support for more specific indexing .
For example - if that site does n't want text content to show in search results - they could specify that in the Robots.txt .
Taking this further - if they wanted the search results headline to look different ( truncated , for example ) than the actual headline ( while still using the full , real headline for searches so SEO doesnt break ) , then they could also specify this in Robots.txt .
Obviously , this specific example may not work , but I think technology can successful solve this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Cache, too.Although, I wonder if Google can add support for more specific indexing.
For example - if that site doesn't want text content to show in search results - they could specify that in the Robots.txt.
Taking this further - if they wanted the search results headline to look different (truncated, for example) than the actual headline (while still using the full, real headline for searches so SEO doesnt break),  then they could also specify this in Robots.txt.
Obviously, this specific example may not work, but I think technology can successful solve this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040244</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fairness to Murdoch, he most likely wants to block \_all\_ syndicated (duplicated) FOX News content from appearing on Google, not just his own website.  This is FOX News's privilege as a copyright owner, and robots.txt will \_not\_ do this.  Either Murdoch forces all syndicating websites to block his content manually (impractical!) or Google will need a custom solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fairness to Murdoch , he most likely wants to block \ _all \ _ syndicated ( duplicated ) FOX News content from appearing on Google , not just his own website .
This is FOX News 's privilege as a copyright owner , and robots.txt will \ _not \ _ do this .
Either Murdoch forces all syndicating websites to block his content manually ( impractical !
) or Google will need a custom solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fairness to Murdoch, he most likely wants to block \_all\_ syndicated (duplicated) FOX News content from appearing on Google, not just his own website.
This is FOX News's privilege as a copyright owner, and robots.txt will \_not\_ do this.
Either Murdoch forces all syndicating websites to block his content manually (impractical!
) or Google will need a custom solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040154</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>uniquename72</author>
	<datestamp>1257770400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?</p></div><p>For general information? Yes. For news? No.
<br> <br>
I begin my day with oatmeal and Google News. If a story isn't linked from there, then it doesn't get read.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ? For general information ?
Yes. For news ?
No . I begin my day with oatmeal and Google News .
If a story is n't linked from there , then it does n't get read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?For general information?
Yes. For news?
No.
 
I begin my day with oatmeal and Google News.
If a story isn't linked from there, then it doesn't get read.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042368</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>CyberSaint</author>
	<datestamp>1257788940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may be able to shed some light on that one. IMHO what he is fighting for has nothing to do with money or power so much as it has to do with legacy. In all likelihood he has committed more time, effort and personal resources to building up NewsCorp than he has with his wife or children, certainly more than he has spent working on world peace or saving the environment. 15 years ago he was well on his way to building what seemed to be an everlasting institution that would be a constant factor in the lives of every individual in the western world, an institution built on what appeared at the time to be an industry essential to our way of life and civilization. While you and I and many members of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would consider our primary contribution to society (our kids, our communities, the passion for understanding and discovery that we instill in those around us) he made a conscious choice to neglect in favor of what appeared to be a more monumental and potentially even more enduring monument to his achievement.</p><p>Now the industry on which he built his legacy is crumbling. While he could devote his final years and vast fortune to things like his family, friends, and community, and sit back and watch while his corporate monument fall, he would never have the chance to recover the lost time and effort it took to build what he perceives as greatest contribution to society. 15 years ago he was looking forward to being remembered for being the architect of an enduring corporate institution, today he's facing the possibility of that being reduced to being a footnote on the Wikipedia page describing the spectacular fall of the corporate news industry.</p><p>A similar perspective could be used to describe why we see so much resistance from other industries failing as a result of new information technologies, they are afraid of becoming irrelevant, from falling on the wrong side of the current technological revolution and becoming lost, and forgotten, a fate worse even than their certain death.</p><p>Or he could just be evil... whatever works for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be able to shed some light on that one .
IMHO what he is fighting for has nothing to do with money or power so much as it has to do with legacy .
In all likelihood he has committed more time , effort and personal resources to building up NewsCorp than he has with his wife or children , certainly more than he has spent working on world peace or saving the environment .
15 years ago he was well on his way to building what seemed to be an everlasting institution that would be a constant factor in the lives of every individual in the western world , an institution built on what appeared at the time to be an industry essential to our way of life and civilization .
While you and I and many members of / .
would consider our primary contribution to society ( our kids , our communities , the passion for understanding and discovery that we instill in those around us ) he made a conscious choice to neglect in favor of what appeared to be a more monumental and potentially even more enduring monument to his achievement.Now the industry on which he built his legacy is crumbling .
While he could devote his final years and vast fortune to things like his family , friends , and community , and sit back and watch while his corporate monument fall , he would never have the chance to recover the lost time and effort it took to build what he perceives as greatest contribution to society .
15 years ago he was looking forward to being remembered for being the architect of an enduring corporate institution , today he 's facing the possibility of that being reduced to being a footnote on the Wikipedia page describing the spectacular fall of the corporate news industry.A similar perspective could be used to describe why we see so much resistance from other industries failing as a result of new information technologies , they are afraid of becoming irrelevant , from falling on the wrong side of the current technological revolution and becoming lost , and forgotten , a fate worse even than their certain death.Or he could just be evil... whatever works for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be able to shed some light on that one.
IMHO what he is fighting for has nothing to do with money or power so much as it has to do with legacy.
In all likelihood he has committed more time, effort and personal resources to building up NewsCorp than he has with his wife or children, certainly more than he has spent working on world peace or saving the environment.
15 years ago he was well on his way to building what seemed to be an everlasting institution that would be a constant factor in the lives of every individual in the western world, an institution built on what appeared at the time to be an industry essential to our way of life and civilization.
While you and I and many members of /.
would consider our primary contribution to society (our kids, our communities, the passion for understanding and discovery that we instill in those around us) he made a conscious choice to neglect in favor of what appeared to be a more monumental and potentially even more enduring monument to his achievement.Now the industry on which he built his legacy is crumbling.
While he could devote his final years and vast fortune to things like his family, friends, and community, and sit back and watch while his corporate monument fall, he would never have the chance to recover the lost time and effort it took to build what he perceives as greatest contribution to society.
15 years ago he was looking forward to being remembered for being the architect of an enduring corporate institution, today he's facing the possibility of that being reduced to being a footnote on the Wikipedia page describing the spectacular fall of the corporate news industry.A similar perspective could be used to describe why we see so much resistance from other industries failing as a result of new information technologies, they are afraid of becoming irrelevant, from falling on the wrong side of the current technological revolution and becoming lost, and forgotten, a fate worse even than their certain death.Or he could just be evil... whatever works for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041950</id>
	<title>Fox News is shit anyway</title>
	<author>SlippyToad</author>
	<datestamp>1257784080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who but a bunch of racist old assholes is going to miss it in their news results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who but a bunch of racist old assholes is going to miss it in their news results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who but a bunch of racist old assholes is going to miss it in their news results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042618</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257792240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a dominant near-monopoly like Google, it probably is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a dominant near-monopoly like Google , it probably is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a dominant near-monopoly like Google, it probably is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040164</id>
	<title>Re:Thesaurus?</title>
	<author>msclrhd</author>
	<datestamp>1257770400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Captain of the circle director Peter Jackson to co-write the Hobbit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captain of the circle director Peter Jackson to co-write the Hobbit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captain of the circle director Peter Jackson to co-write the Hobbit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041838</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1257782820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He's not that stupid a person..</p></div></blockquote><p>
The older I get the less I am to assume this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not that stupid a person. . The older I get the less I am to assume this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not that stupid a person..
The older I get the less I am to assume this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044850</id>
	<title>jars of urine are next?</title>
	<author>jgett</author>
	<datestamp>1257864720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Murdoch feels like it's not his responsibility to put a robots.txt file on his websites. It's like if you put a special sign in your window burglars will skip your house, but really they shouldn't be burgling in the first place. Not that I'm defending him. In fact maybe he's starting to lose it, we could have another Howard Hughes on our hands here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Murdoch feels like it 's not his responsibility to put a robots.txt file on his websites .
It 's like if you put a special sign in your window burglars will skip your house , but really they should n't be burgling in the first place .
Not that I 'm defending him .
In fact maybe he 's starting to lose it , we could have another Howard Hughes on our hands here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Murdoch feels like it's not his responsibility to put a robots.txt file on his websites.
It's like if you put a special sign in your window burglars will skip your house, but really they shouldn't be burgling in the first place.
Not that I'm defending him.
In fact maybe he's starting to lose it, we could have another Howard Hughes on our hands here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043572</id>
	<title>Stop Indexing his sites</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1257849660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Google should humor him and stop indexing his sites completely.  It would be interesting to see how long it would take from him to complain about it. If Murdoch's hegemony want advertising based links, then they need to follow Google's advertising policy - like everyone else does, and buy pay per click links - like everyone else does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google should humor him and stop indexing his sites completely .
It would be interesting to see how long it would take from him to complain about it .
If Murdoch 's hegemony want advertising based links , then they need to follow Google 's advertising policy - like everyone else does , and buy pay per click links - like everyone else does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google should humor him and stop indexing his sites completely.
It would be interesting to see how long it would take from him to complain about it.
If Murdoch's hegemony want advertising based links, then they need to follow Google's advertising policy - like everyone else does, and buy pay per click links - like everyone else does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044408</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At this point in time Google don't need to give rat's ass. They may need to should Rupert convince a significant number of news organisations to follow his lead. Will they? Would they? NewsCorpse is not as powerful as it once was.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=News+Corp+vs+Google" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">This is interesting.</a> [wolframalpha.com] Have Newscorpse bitten off more than they can chew?</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point in time Google do n't need to give rat 's ass .
They may need to should Rupert convince a significant number of news organisations to follow his lead .
Will they ?
Would they ?
NewsCorpse is not as powerful as it once was .
This is interesting .
[ wolframalpha.com ] Have Newscorpse bitten off more than they can chew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point in time Google don't need to give rat's ass.
They may need to should Rupert convince a significant number of news organisations to follow his lead.
Will they?
Would they?
NewsCorpse is not as powerful as it once was.
This is interesting.
[wolframalpha.com] Have Newscorpse bitten off more than they can chew?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044772</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fair Use is an exception to copyright</p></div><p> - wrong.</p><p>Copyright is an exception to Fair Use.  Copyright came last, Fair or any kind of use was there from the beginning, just ask cells sharing each others RNA/DNA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair Use is an exception to copyright - wrong.Copyright is an exception to Fair Use .
Copyright came last , Fair or any kind of use was there from the beginning , just ask cells sharing each others RNA/DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair Use is an exception to copyright - wrong.Copyright is an exception to Fair Use.
Copyright came last, Fair or any kind of use was there from the beginning, just ask cells sharing each others RNA/DNA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041398</id>
	<title>Murdoch lacks guts!</title>
	<author>wshwe</author>
	<datestamp>1257778920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Murdoch was really serious he would ban all search engine scanning on all of his sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Murdoch was really serious he would ban all search engine scanning on all of his sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Murdoch was really serious he would ban all search engine scanning on all of his sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040432</id>
	<title>Fair Use</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1257771720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me see if I've got this right.
</p><p>A search engine saying "Here's what you're looking for, click here" is not fair use. That's stealing.
</p><p>A <i>TV</i> station saying "<i>Local Newspaper</i> said today that [<i>entire text of the story, obviating the need to read it, but still sensationalizing it more</i>]" <b>IS</b> fair use?
</p><p>Yeah. I wonder why you are choosing that viewpoint.
</p><p>That said, it's a free internet (for now). Give it a try. We'll be waiting breathless for the results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me see if I 've got this right .
A search engine saying " Here 's what you 're looking for , click here " is not fair use .
That 's stealing .
A TV station saying " Local Newspaper said today that [ entire text of the story , obviating the need to read it , but still sensationalizing it more ] " IS fair use ?
Yeah. I wonder why you are choosing that viewpoint .
That said , it 's a free internet ( for now ) .
Give it a try .
We 'll be waiting breathless for the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me see if I've got this right.
A search engine saying "Here's what you're looking for, click here" is not fair use.
That's stealing.
A TV station saying "Local Newspaper said today that [entire text of the story, obviating the need to read it, but still sensationalizing it more]" IS fair use?
Yeah. I wonder why you are choosing that viewpoint.
That said, it's a free internet (for now).
Give it a try.
We'll be waiting breathless for the results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044680</id>
	<title>I look forward to this and wish ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1257863520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... he would just hurry up and get it done so I don't have to see any more of that Fox News crap in the Google News searches any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... he would just hurry up and get it done so I do n't have to see any more of that Fox News crap in the Google News searches any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... he would just hurry up and get it done so I don't have to see any more of that Fox News crap in the Google News searches any more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042638</id>
	<title>Just stop including anything Murdoch on Google</title>
	<author>richardkelleher</author>
	<datestamp>1257792420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if Google would simply remove all references to anything Murdoch from the search engine, then all of the Murdoch sites would simply dry up and blow away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if Google would simply remove all references to anything Murdoch from the search engine , then all of the Murdoch sites would simply dry up and blow away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if Google would simply remove all references to anything Murdoch from the search engine, then all of the Murdoch sites would simply dry up and blow away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041998</id>
	<title>Murdoch decides to be irrelevant</title>
	<author>samantha</author>
	<datestamp>1257784440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That which cannot be found with search is not relevant.  Murdoch just confessed he is incompetent to figure out how to make money unless he can monopolize news and even the finding of news.   Goodbye Mr. Murdoch.  Please retire and watch your grandchildren.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That which can not be found with search is not relevant .
Murdoch just confessed he is incompetent to figure out how to make money unless he can monopolize news and even the finding of news .
Goodbye Mr. Murdoch. Please retire and watch your grandchildren .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That which cannot be found with search is not relevant.
Murdoch just confessed he is incompetent to figure out how to make money unless he can monopolize news and even the finding of news.
Goodbye Mr. Murdoch.  Please retire and watch your grandchildren.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040250</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257770820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want <b>our propaganda and lies</b>, come to us and do it properly.</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want our propaganda and lies , come to us and do it properly.FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want our propaganda and lies, come to us and do it properly.FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870</id>
	<title>Rephrase what he wants</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a department store. It probably carries a lot of merchandise. But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door. And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries, or what he's got on sale this week. He feels that <i>he</i> should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.</p><p>Would you bother going to his store? Or would you go to the Target or Wal-Mart that's happy to have a flyer in the paper listing everything they've got on sale this week.</p><p>Yeah, thought so.</p><p>It's your right to be stupid and wrong-headed, Mr. Murdoch. Everyone has that gods-given right. But don't come whining to us when your plan fails to go the way you want it to go. We, after all, never signed any agreement saying we'd only behave the way you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a department store .
It probably carries a lot of merchandise .
But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door .
And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries , or what he 's got on sale this week .
He feels that he should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.Would you bother going to his store ?
Or would you go to the Target or Wal-Mart that 's happy to have a flyer in the paper listing everything they 've got on sale this week.Yeah , thought so.It 's your right to be stupid and wrong-headed , Mr. Murdoch. Everyone has that gods-given right .
But do n't come whining to us when your plan fails to go the way you want it to go .
We , after all , never signed any agreement saying we 'd only behave the way you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a department store.
It probably carries a lot of merchandise.
But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door.
And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries, or what he's got on sale this week.
He feels that he should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.Would you bother going to his store?
Or would you go to the Target or Wal-Mart that's happy to have a flyer in the paper listing everything they've got on sale this week.Yeah, thought so.It's your right to be stupid and wrong-headed, Mr. Murdoch. Everyone has that gods-given right.
But don't come whining to us when your plan fails to go the way you want it to go.
We, after all, never signed any agreement saying we'd only behave the way you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041498</id>
	<title>Re:No more FoxNews in my search results!</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1257779580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does google have a feature that says "don't show results from this site anymore"? I can see a promote option, and a remove option, but I don't know that they are permanent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does google have a feature that says " do n't show results from this site anymore " ?
I can see a promote option , and a remove option , but I do n't know that they are permanent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does google have a feature that says "don't show results from this site anymore"?
I can see a promote option, and a remove option, but I don't know that they are permanent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041060</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1257775740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, every time I see a quote from Rupert Murdoch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , every time I see a quote from Rupert Murdoch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, every time I see a quote from Rupert Murdoch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041660</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>SQL Error</author>
	<datestamp>1257781020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So just like the rest of the media, but with tits?</p><p>Sounds like a win to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So just like the rest of the media , but with tits ? Sounds like a win to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just like the rest of the media, but with tits?Sounds like a win to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30045968</id>
	<title>Someone should make a plugin</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1257870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should make a plugin like this one: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12305" title="mozilla.org">surfclarity</a> [mozilla.org] but make it just filter out FoxNews and other NewsCorp results and name it "NoMurdoch" or "Block FoxNews" or some other blatant reference to blocking out FoxNews and then distribute it far and wide...</p><p>Could be the start of a whole new way to protest. Get enough people to install and you'll see a news story out of it - and that will get Mr. Murdoch's attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should make a plugin like this one : surfclarity [ mozilla.org ] but make it just filter out FoxNews and other NewsCorp results and name it " NoMurdoch " or " Block FoxNews " or some other blatant reference to blocking out FoxNews and then distribute it far and wide...Could be the start of a whole new way to protest .
Get enough people to install and you 'll see a news story out of it - and that will get Mr. Murdoch 's attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should make a plugin like this one: surfclarity [mozilla.org] but make it just filter out FoxNews and other NewsCorp results and name it "NoMurdoch" or "Block FoxNews" or some other blatant reference to blocking out FoxNews and then distribute it far and wide...Could be the start of a whole new way to protest.
Get enough people to install and you'll see a news story out of it - and that will get Mr. Murdoch's attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041604</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>kingbilly</author>
	<datestamp>1257780600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was such an easy answer in the first place that it could occur just in the description of the link, of course!</p><p>This is like the cheap way local news stations get you to watch the whole 11pm news.</p><p>7pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.  Find out tonight at 11!<br>8pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.  Find out tonight at 11!<br>9pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.  Find out tonight at 11!<br>10pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.  Find out tonight at 11!<br>11pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.  Find out on this show!<br>11:08pm: And coming up soon, There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge. But first weather.<br>11:30pm: Coming up after the break, 8pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.  Stick around.<br>11:59pm: And, if you eat spoiled food at the same time your murdered, you might die!<br>Roll Credits</p><p>You better believe if i can find the information before news outlets decided when I am allowed by all means I will.<br>Even on a page of search results, the answer to a question found in a link preview STILL is more readable that some of the junk clogged websites many news organizations have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was such an easy answer in the first place that it could occur just in the description of the link , of course ! This is like the cheap way local news stations get you to watch the whole 11pm news.7pm : There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
Find out tonight at 11 ! 8pm : There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
Find out tonight at 11 ! 9pm : There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
Find out tonight at 11 ! 10pm : There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
Find out tonight at 11 ! 11pm : There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
Find out on this show ! 11 : 08pm : And coming up soon , There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
But first weather.11 : 30pm : Coming up after the break , 8pm : There 's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge .
Stick around.11 : 59pm : And , if you eat spoiled food at the same time your murdered , you might die ! Roll CreditsYou better believe if i can find the information before news outlets decided when I am allowed by all means I will.Even on a page of search results , the answer to a question found in a link preview STILL is more readable that some of the junk clogged websites many news organizations have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was such an easy answer in the first place that it could occur just in the description of the link, of course!This is like the cheap way local news stations get you to watch the whole 11pm news.7pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
Find out tonight at 11!8pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
Find out tonight at 11!9pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
Find out tonight at 11!10pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
Find out tonight at 11!11pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
Find out on this show!11:08pm: And coming up soon, There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
But first weather.11:30pm: Coming up after the break, 8pm: There's a food that might kill you already sitting in your fridge.
Stick around.11:59pm: And, if you eat spoiled food at the same time your murdered, you might die!Roll CreditsYou better believe if i can find the information before news outlets decided when I am allowed by all means I will.Even on a page of search results, the answer to a question found in a link preview STILL is more readable that some of the junk clogged websites many news organizations have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040706</id>
	<title>Welcome to the digital age, Rupert</title>
	<author>zekt</author>
	<datestamp>1257773400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had the pleasure of cycling for about 4 hours with on of the editors from a large Murdoch owned newspaper back in 2000.</p><p>He asked me where the internet was heading, and how they could leverage it to provide content, and get the readers involved.  I also highlighted problems like the sourcing of press releases as articles and the conflicting information they will find in other sources.  Opportunities also would present themselves like geolocated and profiled advertising.  To their credit, they have persued much of this.  The problem is that Google is their competition.  I can find anything I want, for free, quicker, crowdsourced, discussed in forums and critiqued.  The only service newspapers now offer is a stream of aggregation - and that puts them in direct competition with search engines.</p><p>This has been a perfect storm for Murdoch.  He has concernrated media, driving variety out of the the market, and opening doors for players of new technology to enter into a niche and then expand to take his business.</p><p>His papers will evaporate.  Unfortunately, with it will go the newsagencies, delivery routes and old paper advertising industry that went with it.  The biggest danger Rupert faces is Apple Tablet - if you can read on that, and it works well - newpapers are in for a world of pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the pleasure of cycling for about 4 hours with on of the editors from a large Murdoch owned newspaper back in 2000.He asked me where the internet was heading , and how they could leverage it to provide content , and get the readers involved .
I also highlighted problems like the sourcing of press releases as articles and the conflicting information they will find in other sources .
Opportunities also would present themselves like geolocated and profiled advertising .
To their credit , they have persued much of this .
The problem is that Google is their competition .
I can find anything I want , for free , quicker , crowdsourced , discussed in forums and critiqued .
The only service newspapers now offer is a stream of aggregation - and that puts them in direct competition with search engines.This has been a perfect storm for Murdoch .
He has concernrated media , driving variety out of the the market , and opening doors for players of new technology to enter into a niche and then expand to take his business.His papers will evaporate .
Unfortunately , with it will go the newsagencies , delivery routes and old paper advertising industry that went with it .
The biggest danger Rupert faces is Apple Tablet - if you can read on that , and it works well - newpapers are in for a world of pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the pleasure of cycling for about 4 hours with on of the editors from a large Murdoch owned newspaper back in 2000.He asked me where the internet was heading, and how they could leverage it to provide content, and get the readers involved.
I also highlighted problems like the sourcing of press releases as articles and the conflicting information they will find in other sources.
Opportunities also would present themselves like geolocated and profiled advertising.
To their credit, they have persued much of this.
The problem is that Google is their competition.
I can find anything I want, for free, quicker, crowdsourced, discussed in forums and critiqued.
The only service newspapers now offer is a stream of aggregation - and that puts them in direct competition with search engines.This has been a perfect storm for Murdoch.
He has concernrated media, driving variety out of the the market, and opening doors for players of new technology to enter into a niche and then expand to take his business.His papers will evaporate.
Unfortunately, with it will go the newsagencies, delivery routes and old paper advertising industry that went with it.
The biggest danger Rupert faces is Apple Tablet - if you can read on that, and it works well - newpapers are in for a world of pain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040226</id>
	<title>Re:You guys are smarter than this</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257770760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Google is the one providing the service. If he doesn't want to be scanned he can put that txt file in to stop it. If he thinks that he is going to get Google to pay for Google doing work - he's very mistaken. Google will drop him like a bad habit and they will be just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Google is the one providing the service .
If he does n't want to be scanned he can put that txt file in to stop it .
If he thinks that he is going to get Google to pay for Google doing work - he 's very mistaken .
Google will drop him like a bad habit and they will be just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Google is the one providing the service.
If he doesn't want to be scanned he can put that txt file in to stop it.
If he thinks that he is going to get Google to pay for Google doing work - he's very mistaken.
Google will drop him like a bad habit and they will be just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043784</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;See this story (On one of his own sites): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html [foxnews.com] where it is mentioned.</p><p>you my friend linked to Rupert's site<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... he will be angry now !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; See this story ( On one of his own sites ) : http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html [ foxnews.com ] where it is mentioned.you my friend linked to Rupert 's site ... he will be angry now !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;See this story (On one of his own sites): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html [foxnews.com] where it is mentioned.you my friend linked to Rupert's site ... he will be angry now !
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043096</id>
	<title>Good job!</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1257885540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>161 references to robots.txt searching the comments<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>What I think Robert Murdoch should do is just Disallow google from the robots.txt file! Anybody else have that idea ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>161 references to robots.txt searching the comments : ) What I think Robert Murdoch should do is just Disallow google from the robots.txt file !
Anybody else have that idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>161 references to robots.txt searching the comments :)What I think Robert Murdoch should do is just Disallow google from the robots.txt file!
Anybody else have that idea ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042312</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google were reporting the facts, you might have a point, but they're not. Google is reporting the contents of Murdoch's websites. How amazing that what you mention therefore has little, if anything, to do with the actual problem for Murdoch's business model. Have you considered writing for Fox News?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google were reporting the facts , you might have a point , but they 're not .
Google is reporting the contents of Murdoch 's websites .
How amazing that what you mention therefore has little , if anything , to do with the actual problem for Murdoch 's business model .
Have you considered writing for Fox News ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google were reporting the facts, you might have a point, but they're not.
Google is reporting the contents of Murdoch's websites.
How amazing that what you mention therefore has little, if anything, to do with the actual problem for Murdoch's business model.
Have you considered writing for Fox News?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040192</id>
	<title>Has anybody noticed......</title>
	<author>taksraven</author>
	<datestamp>1257770520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>.....as he gets older that Rupert looks *and* acts more and more like Mr Burns.

This comment will probably get me on a NewsCorp hitllist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.....as he gets older that Rupert looks * and * acts more and more like Mr Burns .
This comment will probably get me on a NewsCorp hitllist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....as he gets older that Rupert looks *and* acts more and more like Mr Burns.
This comment will probably get me on a NewsCorp hitllist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041208</id>
	<title>MS, AOL, Yaho, etc....</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257776940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>should join Google and DROP ALL OF MURDOCH'S COMPANIES. Let him know what a day without Search Engines would be like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>should join Google and DROP ALL OF MURDOCH 'S COMPANIES .
Let him know what a day without Search Engines would be like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should join Google and DROP ALL OF MURDOCH'S COMPANIES.
Let him know what a day without Search Engines would be like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040954</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257775020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey welcome to the internet.  if they don't like that, then they can build a walled garden. don't put content up on the net you don't want distributed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey welcome to the internet .
if they do n't like that , then they can build a walled garden .
do n't put content up on the net you do n't want distributed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey welcome to the internet.
if they don't like that, then they can build a walled garden.
don't put content up on the net you don't want distributed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049150</id>
	<title>Re:Rephrase what he wants</title>
	<author>polle404</author>
	<datestamp>1257881580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apt analogy, but a little off.<br>Murdoch WANTS the local paper to carry the information, but ONLY what he allows and ONLY if they pay him for the privilege.<br>Here's to hoping his empire soon crashes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apt analogy , but a little off.Murdoch WANTS the local paper to carry the information , but ONLY what he allows and ONLY if they pay him for the privilege.Here 's to hoping his empire soon crashes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apt analogy, but a little off.Murdoch WANTS the local paper to carry the information, but ONLY what he allows and ONLY if they pay him for the privilege.Here's to hoping his empire soon crashes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043026</id>
	<title>No, but it could be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, it's a pretty big struggle right now for conservative voices, nearly drowned out and lost in the liberal sea of the Mainstream Media.</p><p>Maybe some kind of "Fairness Doctrine" that compelled media outlets to give time to opposing viewpoints could help boost their message?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , it 's a pretty big struggle right now for conservative voices , nearly drowned out and lost in the liberal sea of the Mainstream Media.Maybe some kind of " Fairness Doctrine " that compelled media outlets to give time to opposing viewpoints could help boost their message ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, it's a pretty big struggle right now for conservative voices, nearly drowned out and lost in the liberal sea of the Mainstream Media.Maybe some kind of "Fairness Doctrine" that compelled media outlets to give time to opposing viewpoints could help boost their message?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041264</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1257777540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..</p></div></blockquote><p>
Rupert is 78 years old. The onset of dementia is a real risk at his age, and would explain how he has been acting of late. Poor judgment shows up in the mild Alzheimer's stage, or before, in the "mild cognitive impairment" stage. (Alzheimer's accounts for 50\% or more of dementia cases - so if he has dementia, it's probably that). A demented person in the early stages of the disease can converse perfectly normally, and still make gross errors of judgment.
<br> <br>
Successful business leaders are generally used to being right most of the time (because they have been in the past). Indeed for most, if they operated on consensus views, they would never have taken the risks they have taken and succeeded. When bits of their brain start dying on them, causing them to operate on incomplete or out of date information because they can't form memories or analyze things properly, they will start to run into problems. They can then do one of two things. They can either try and see if there is a problem, or they can believe that this is yet another instance where the world is wrong and they are right, which is an ingrained thought pattern. Denial is generally easier.
<br> <br>
Successful business owners have also often put themselves in a position where no one can tell them what to do, and if they don't want to listen to other people, they won't. Many are narcissistic, and have surrounded themselves with yes men who will tell the boss yes even when the answer is obviously no. Those few minions with the guts to explain a robots.txt file (or worse, that the boss is losing his mind) may well have been sent to whatever News Corp's version of Siberia is.
<br> <br>
Of course, it may not be dementia. He may be 13 years past retirement age and functioning well. But several things he has said, like his expectation that his business's profit margins should somehow deserve to be preserved (unlike any other business), the fact that he seems to think he can go up against google (which has twice the market cap and surely as many friends in high places) and win, his age, and his Sun King reputation lead me to suspect dementia.
<br> <br>
Even if it is not dementia, age takes its toll on the brain. If Rupert is right and everyone else is wrong, then he is clearly operating at genius level. How many geniuses were still functioning at genius level at age 78? Most every genius (including in the field of business) I can think of throughout history did their best work well before age 65.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not that stupid a person.. and there 's no way that someone has n't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now. . Rupert is 78 years old .
The onset of dementia is a real risk at his age , and would explain how he has been acting of late .
Poor judgment shows up in the mild Alzheimer 's stage , or before , in the " mild cognitive impairment " stage .
( Alzheimer 's accounts for 50 \ % or more of dementia cases - so if he has dementia , it 's probably that ) .
A demented person in the early stages of the disease can converse perfectly normally , and still make gross errors of judgment .
Successful business leaders are generally used to being right most of the time ( because they have been in the past ) .
Indeed for most , if they operated on consensus views , they would never have taken the risks they have taken and succeeded .
When bits of their brain start dying on them , causing them to operate on incomplete or out of date information because they ca n't form memories or analyze things properly , they will start to run into problems .
They can then do one of two things .
They can either try and see if there is a problem , or they can believe that this is yet another instance where the world is wrong and they are right , which is an ingrained thought pattern .
Denial is generally easier .
Successful business owners have also often put themselves in a position where no one can tell them what to do , and if they do n't want to listen to other people , they wo n't .
Many are narcissistic , and have surrounded themselves with yes men who will tell the boss yes even when the answer is obviously no .
Those few minions with the guts to explain a robots.txt file ( or worse , that the boss is losing his mind ) may well have been sent to whatever News Corp 's version of Siberia is .
Of course , it may not be dementia .
He may be 13 years past retirement age and functioning well .
But several things he has said , like his expectation that his business 's profit margins should somehow deserve to be preserved ( unlike any other business ) , the fact that he seems to think he can go up against google ( which has twice the market cap and surely as many friends in high places ) and win , his age , and his Sun King reputation lead me to suspect dementia .
Even if it is not dementia , age takes its toll on the brain .
If Rupert is right and everyone else is wrong , then he is clearly operating at genius level .
How many geniuses were still functioning at genius level at age 78 ?
Most every genius ( including in the field of business ) I can think of throughout history did their best work well before age 65 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..
Rupert is 78 years old.
The onset of dementia is a real risk at his age, and would explain how he has been acting of late.
Poor judgment shows up in the mild Alzheimer's stage, or before, in the "mild cognitive impairment" stage.
(Alzheimer's accounts for 50\% or more of dementia cases - so if he has dementia, it's probably that).
A demented person in the early stages of the disease can converse perfectly normally, and still make gross errors of judgment.
Successful business leaders are generally used to being right most of the time (because they have been in the past).
Indeed for most, if they operated on consensus views, they would never have taken the risks they have taken and succeeded.
When bits of their brain start dying on them, causing them to operate on incomplete or out of date information because they can't form memories or analyze things properly, they will start to run into problems.
They can then do one of two things.
They can either try and see if there is a problem, or they can believe that this is yet another instance where the world is wrong and they are right, which is an ingrained thought pattern.
Denial is generally easier.
Successful business owners have also often put themselves in a position where no one can tell them what to do, and if they don't want to listen to other people, they won't.
Many are narcissistic, and have surrounded themselves with yes men who will tell the boss yes even when the answer is obviously no.
Those few minions with the guts to explain a robots.txt file (or worse, that the boss is losing his mind) may well have been sent to whatever News Corp's version of Siberia is.
Of course, it may not be dementia.
He may be 13 years past retirement age and functioning well.
But several things he has said, like his expectation that his business's profit margins should somehow deserve to be preserved (unlike any other business), the fact that he seems to think he can go up against google (which has twice the market cap and surely as many friends in high places) and win, his age, and his Sun King reputation lead me to suspect dementia.
Even if it is not dementia, age takes its toll on the brain.
If Rupert is right and everyone else is wrong, then he is clearly operating at genius level.
How many geniuses were still functioning at genius level at age 78?
Most every genius (including in the field of business) I can think of throughout history did their best work well before age 65.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776</id>
	<title>I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042322</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1257788340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?"
<br> <br>
As many of my teachers have explained, there are always a few students that do this right before class, turning in 13-second responses to assignments that were meant to be done the night before.<br>
I at least had the common sense to reword everything in my own way, and I also typed much faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ?
" As many of my teachers have explained , there are always a few students that do this right before class , turning in 13-second responses to assignments that were meant to be done the night before .
I at least had the common sense to reword everything in my own way , and I also typed much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?
"
 
As many of my teachers have explained, there are always a few students that do this right before class, turning in 13-second responses to assignments that were meant to be done the night before.
I at least had the common sense to reword everything in my own way, and I also typed much faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816</id>
	<title>Wouldn't work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257774060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch would sue. More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.</p><p>No, what would make more sense is, with each of these articles, publicly respond -- in particular, contact whatever organization published the Murdoch rant. Make two offers:</p><p>First, offer to that news organization that a representative will be available for comment every time Murdoch does this. This isn't a big deal, as it'll pretty much be cut and paste.</p><p>Second, in this response and in all further comments, make the public offer to do exactly what he is asking for -- stop indexing his stuff. If he says "no", end of story. If he doesn't respond, he's going to look very stupid in future articles like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch would sue .
More likely , Fox would sue , whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.No , what would make more sense is , with each of these articles , publicly respond -- in particular , contact whatever organization published the Murdoch rant .
Make two offers : First , offer to that news organization that a representative will be available for comment every time Murdoch does this .
This is n't a big deal , as it 'll pretty much be cut and paste.Second , in this response and in all further comments , make the public offer to do exactly what he is asking for -- stop indexing his stuff .
If he says " no " , end of story .
If he does n't respond , he 's going to look very stupid in future articles like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch would sue.
More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.No, what would make more sense is, with each of these articles, publicly respond -- in particular, contact whatever organization published the Murdoch rant.
Make two offers:First, offer to that news organization that a representative will be available for comment every time Murdoch does this.
This isn't a big deal, as it'll pretty much be cut and paste.Second, in this response and in all further comments, make the public offer to do exactly what he is asking for -- stop indexing his stuff.
If he says "no", end of story.
If he doesn't respond, he's going to look very stupid in future articles like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040404</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257771660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?</p></div><p>That may be the case for *some* sites, and those *some* sites have full control.</p><p>Google doesn't simply have a binary on/off switch. You can select whether Google should cache your page or not.</p><p>Whether it should show a snippet or not. You can even force-feed Google the snippet to use via meta description tag (one of the old meta tags that still works today).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ? That may be the case for * some * sites , and those * some * sites have full control.Google does n't simply have a binary on/off switch .
You can select whether Google should cache your page or not.Whether it should show a snippet or not .
You can even force-feed Google the snippet to use via meta description tag ( one of the old meta tags that still works today ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?That may be the case for *some* sites, and those *some* sites have full control.Google doesn't simply have a binary on/off switch.
You can select whether Google should cache your page or not.Whether it should show a snippet or not.
You can even force-feed Google the snippet to use via meta description tag (one of the old meta tags that still works today).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040400</id>
	<title>He's doing it already</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1257771660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like News Corporation is already starting to "freeze" Google out. I have a newsfeed for the New York Post, a Murdoch property on my iGoogle page and the article summaries are replaced by text that reads "Information is temporarily unavailable." It's too bad, because the summaries make me <b>more</b> likely to click the link to the full article. As for the talk of providing News Corp. content via a subscription model - forget it. The average Joe figures he pays for his Internet access, so he expects to be able to access any content he wants. If one content provider charges a fee, dozens of other ones will line up to provide the same (or better) content for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like News Corporation is already starting to " freeze " Google out .
I have a newsfeed for the New York Post , a Murdoch property on my iGoogle page and the article summaries are replaced by text that reads " Information is temporarily unavailable .
" It 's too bad , because the summaries make me more likely to click the link to the full article .
As for the talk of providing News Corp. content via a subscription model - forget it .
The average Joe figures he pays for his Internet access , so he expects to be able to access any content he wants .
If one content provider charges a fee , dozens of other ones will line up to provide the same ( or better ) content for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like News Corporation is already starting to "freeze" Google out.
I have a newsfeed for the New York Post, a Murdoch property on my iGoogle page and the article summaries are replaced by text that reads "Information is temporarily unavailable.
" It's too bad, because the summaries make me more likely to click the link to the full article.
As for the talk of providing News Corp. content via a subscription model - forget it.
The average Joe figures he pays for his Internet access, so he expects to be able to access any content he wants.
If one content provider charges a fee, dozens of other ones will line up to provide the same (or better) content for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044616</id>
	<title>Re:Has anybody noticed......</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1257862980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Smithers, have the Rolling Stones killed.<br>- But sir, parent isn't a member of...<br>- Do as I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Smithers , have the Rolling Stones killed.- But sir , parent is n't a member of...- Do as I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Smithers, have the Rolling Stones killed.- But sir, parent isn't a member of...- Do as I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040380</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257771480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?</p></div><p>Of all the news corporations, Fox News might be able to succesfully pull off a pay-wall.<br>Their readers/viewers are <i>really</i> loyal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine ? Of all the news corporations , Fox News might be able to succesfully pull off a pay-wall.Their readers/viewers are really loyal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?Of all the news corporations, Fox News might be able to succesfully pull off a pay-wall.Their readers/viewers are really loyal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041780</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1257782280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... But we'll take that slowly."</p><p>That's pretty much the definition of FUD. "We can and will destroy you, but we choose not to for now." A.k.a. "bullshit".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's a doctrine called 'fair use ' , which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... But we 'll take that slowly .
" That 's pretty much the definition of FUD .
" We can and will destroy you , but we choose not to for now .
" A.k.a .
" bullshit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... But we'll take that slowly.
"That's pretty much the definition of FUD.
"We can and will destroy you, but we choose not to for now.
" A.k.a.
"bullshit".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041126</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257776340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop, right now, and live happily ever after.  He easily works 60 hours a week at the office, and probably more if he takes anything home with him.  We've talked about the quandary you just presented.</p><p>His answer as to why he continues to build and expand:  "Because I really enjoy it."  And I don't think there's much more to be said about it, except that some folks like playing football, or billiards.  Some folks paint pictures for fun.  And some folks build empires.  It's like playing Risk, but with real assets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop , right now , and live happily ever after .
He easily works 60 hours a week at the office , and probably more if he takes anything home with him .
We 've talked about the quandary you just presented.His answer as to why he continues to build and expand : " Because I really enjoy it .
" And I do n't think there 's much more to be said about it , except that some folks like playing football , or billiards .
Some folks paint pictures for fun .
And some folks build empires .
It 's like playing Risk , but with real assets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop, right now, and live happily ever after.
He easily works 60 hours a week at the office, and probably more if he takes anything home with him.
We've talked about the quandary you just presented.His answer as to why he continues to build and expand:  "Because I really enjoy it.
"  And I don't think there's much more to be said about it, except that some folks like playing football, or billiards.
Some folks paint pictures for fun.
And some folks build empires.
It's like playing Risk, but with real assets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042092</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257785400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>His answer as to why he continues to build and expand: "Because I really enjoy it."</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, I don't, so I have a modest proposal: Your friend gives me enough money that I can stop working tomorrow. I'll spend a good chunk of my spare time doing more work on free software, and your friend can carry on working to earn a second fortune, and we'll both be happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His answer as to why he continues to build and expand : " Because I really enjoy it .
" Well , I do n't , so I have a modest proposal : Your friend gives me enough money that I can stop working tomorrow .
I 'll spend a good chunk of my spare time doing more work on free software , and your friend can carry on working to earn a second fortune , and we 'll both be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His answer as to why he continues to build and expand: "Because I really enjoy it.
"Well, I don't, so I have a modest proposal: Your friend gives me enough money that I can stop working tomorrow.
I'll spend a good chunk of my spare time doing more work on free software, and your friend can carry on working to earn a second fortune, and we'll both be happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039876</id>
	<title>Massive engineering effort required!</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1257769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how the tone of the headline and article implies some heavy handed operation here. As if "blocking Google" required a massive engineering effort, or it was tricky to block Google.</p><p>In reality, this can be done with robots.txt (which Google honors). If you don't trust robots.txt, it's a few lines in a web server configuration file can make sure that all connections from Google will be blocked.</p><p>I agree with some other posters. The aggressive language indicates that something else is happening here, behind the scenes. Either that, or you have some really clueless managers at Murdoch's organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how the tone of the headline and article implies some heavy handed operation here .
As if " blocking Google " required a massive engineering effort , or it was tricky to block Google.In reality , this can be done with robots.txt ( which Google honors ) .
If you do n't trust robots.txt , it 's a few lines in a web server configuration file can make sure that all connections from Google will be blocked.I agree with some other posters .
The aggressive language indicates that something else is happening here , behind the scenes .
Either that , or you have some really clueless managers at Murdoch 's organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how the tone of the headline and article implies some heavy handed operation here.
As if "blocking Google" required a massive engineering effort, or it was tricky to block Google.In reality, this can be done with robots.txt (which Google honors).
If you don't trust robots.txt, it's a few lines in a web server configuration file can make sure that all connections from Google will be blocked.I agree with some other posters.
The aggressive language indicates that something else is happening here, behind the scenes.
Either that, or you have some really clueless managers at Murdoch's organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think I get it...</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1257769440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.</p><p>Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then <b>not</b> clicked the website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news , come to us and do it properly.Have you ever searched for some information , and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question ?
And then not clicked the website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question?
And then not clicked the website?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044444</id>
	<title>Entertainment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257861360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the real issue is that he wants people to pay to be entertained? This has nothing to do with news, cause he doesn't have access to any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the real issue is that he wants people to pay to be entertained ?
This has nothing to do with news , cause he does n't have access to any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the real issue is that he wants people to pay to be entertained?
This has nothing to do with news, cause he doesn't have access to any.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042686</id>
	<title>lolll...what horsehockey...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1257793320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't have anything to do with money.</p><p>Fox and Murdoch have a vested interest in ensuring that nobody can quote Fox/Murdoch story version 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h....1y when they try to sell America story version 1z.</p><p>Google makes it way, way too easy to demonstrate Fox's unique addiction to revisionism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't have anything to do with money.Fox and Murdoch have a vested interest in ensuring that nobody can quote Fox/Murdoch story version 1a , 1b , 1c , 1d , 1e , 1f , 1g , 1h....1y when they try to sell America story version 1z.Google makes it way , way too easy to demonstrate Fox 's unique addiction to revisionism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't have anything to do with money.Fox and Murdoch have a vested interest in ensuring that nobody can quote Fox/Murdoch story version 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h....1y when they try to sell America story version 1z.Google makes it way, way too easy to demonstrate Fox's unique addiction to revisionism.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30062406</id>
	<title>Rupert, Rupert, Rupert...</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1257099900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are we going to do with a little wrinkled piggie like you, trying to ruin everything you don't "control"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are we going to do with a little wrinkled piggie like you , trying to ruin everything you do n't " control " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are we going to do with a little wrinkled piggie like you, trying to ruin everything you don't "control"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040240</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>jeek</author>
	<datestamp>1257770820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml" title="foxnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml</a> [foxnews.com]</p><p>Murdoch is so intent on blocking Google News that his site automatically generates the feed necessary for the import.</p><p>Wait.. I think I missed something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.foxnews.com/google \ _news \ _index.xml [ foxnews.com ] Murdoch is so intent on blocking Google News that his site automatically generates the feed necessary for the import.Wait.. I think I missed something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.foxnews.com/google\_news\_index.xml [foxnews.com]Murdoch is so intent on blocking Google News that his site automatically generates the feed necessary for the import.Wait.. I think I missed something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041964</id>
	<title>Re:speed he will turn around</title>
	<author>SlippyToad</author>
	<datestamp>1257784140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or better yet, just watch his worthless propaganda empire go underwater with a pathetic gurgle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or better yet , just watch his worthless propaganda empire go underwater with a pathetic gurgle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or better yet, just watch his worthless propaganda empire go underwater with a pathetic gurgle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040150</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1257770340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If it's a valid defence then you aren't guilty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement .
If it 's a valid defence then you are n't guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair use is a defense when you are guilty of copyright infringement.
If it's a valid defence then you aren't guilty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042378</id>
	<title>Re:This has nothing to do with Fair Use</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1257789000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The case you cite specifically refers to a news service that obtained early copies of news stories from another news service, rewrote them, and published those without attribution. (Sounds like Rupert Murdoch style news reporting to me!)It has \_nothing\_ to do with Murdoch's claims because Google is directly quoting, not rewriting and pretending to have actually been the source of that news. Google, however, is actually publishing excerpts from the website.</p><p>Please, before you make claims about a court ruling, actually read it or at least read a competent analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The case you cite specifically refers to a news service that obtained early copies of news stories from another news service , rewrote them , and published those without attribution .
( Sounds like Rupert Murdoch style news reporting to me !
) It has \ _nothing \ _ to do with Murdoch 's claims because Google is directly quoting , not rewriting and pretending to have actually been the source of that news .
Google , however , is actually publishing excerpts from the website.Please , before you make claims about a court ruling , actually read it or at least read a competent analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The case you cite specifically refers to a news service that obtained early copies of news stories from another news service, rewrote them, and published those without attribution.
(Sounds like Rupert Murdoch style news reporting to me!
)It has \_nothing\_ to do with Murdoch's claims because Google is directly quoting, not rewriting and pretending to have actually been the source of that news.
Google, however, is actually publishing excerpts from the website.Please, before you make claims about a court ruling, actually read it or at least read a competent analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041810</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257782580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word:  sociopath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word : sociopath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word:  sociopath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043418</id>
	<title>After a point money = power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After a point money = power and only power. As you say, you can buy ANYTHING you want materially with billions in the bank. But when someone else has a billion more than you they have more power than you.</p><p>And that's wrong.</p><p>If it were right they'd be as smart as you and they're obviously not because they don't agree with you.</p><p>So you must have power over this other person therefore you need more money.</p><p>And spending money is not to be done unless it buys you power, so you spend a million on a soiree with politicians and heads of state attending but you don't buy a shirt unless the one you have on looks like it belongs to a poor person (because that would make you look like you have less money and therefore be less respected).</p><p>etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a point money = power and only power .
As you say , you can buy ANYTHING you want materially with billions in the bank .
But when someone else has a billion more than you they have more power than you.And that 's wrong.If it were right they 'd be as smart as you and they 're obviously not because they do n't agree with you.So you must have power over this other person therefore you need more money.And spending money is not to be done unless it buys you power , so you spend a million on a soiree with politicians and heads of state attending but you do n't buy a shirt unless the one you have on looks like it belongs to a poor person ( because that would make you look like you have less money and therefore be less respected ) .etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a point money = power and only power.
As you say, you can buy ANYTHING you want materially with billions in the bank.
But when someone else has a billion more than you they have more power than you.And that's wrong.If it were right they'd be as smart as you and they're obviously not because they don't agree with you.So you must have power over this other person therefore you need more money.And spending money is not to be done unless it buys you power, so you spend a million on a soiree with politicians and heads of state attending but you don't buy a shirt unless the one you have on looks like it belongs to a poor person (because that would make you look like you have less money and therefore be less respected).etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040844</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1257774240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he's just got it in his head that google should pay him some money, due to it's searches turning up text from his website. i kid you not, this is the level he plays on.<p>
personally i know how this play out, rupert will spend millions on lawyers and "experts" only to find the traffic on his site drops to nothing when he blocks google. then he will proclaim the internet killed real news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's just got it in his head that google should pay him some money , due to it 's searches turning up text from his website .
i kid you not , this is the level he plays on .
personally i know how this play out , rupert will spend millions on lawyers and " experts " only to find the traffic on his site drops to nothing when he blocks google .
then he will proclaim the internet killed real news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's just got it in his head that google should pay him some money, due to it's searches turning up text from his website.
i kid you not, this is the level he plays on.
personally i know how this play out, rupert will spend millions on lawyers and "experts" only to find the traffic on his site drops to nothing when he blocks google.
then he will proclaim the internet killed real news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042634</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257792420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would work.  Google is not a government entity and is \_\_completely\_\_ within their right to discriminate against another business for whatever reason they want, political or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would work .
Google is not a government entity and is \ _ \ _completely \ _ \ _ within their right to discriminate against another business for whatever reason they want , political or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would work.
Google is not a government entity and is \_\_completely\_\_ within their right to discriminate against another business for whatever reason they want, political or otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892</id>
	<title>!Baffling...  Bluffing</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257769200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial (to Murdoch) terms.
I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications' owners to do the same thing.<br>
They don't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going.  He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).
<p>
It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).  If Rupert doesn't have a coalition going, there's only so much posturing he can do before actually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting\_off\_the\_nose\_to\_spite\_the\_face" title="wikipedia.org">cutting off his nose to spite his face</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial ( to Murdoch ) terms .
I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications ' owners to do the same thing .
They do n't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going .
He can block WSJ.com , claim some victory , show it as a case model , and hope others buy his idea ( WSJ does not need Google , but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites ) .
It 's not politics , it 's purely ( an attempt to save a failed ) business ( model ) .
If Rupert does n't have a coalition going , there 's only so much posturing he can do before actually cutting off his nose to spite his face [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial (to Murdoch) terms.
I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications' owners to do the same thing.
They don't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going.
He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).
It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model).
If Rupert doesn't have a coalition going, there's only so much posturing he can do before actually cutting off his nose to spite his face [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30046572</id>
	<title>Frames</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1257872880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google should for just one day have Google news load all the articles in frames to show Murdock how absolutely brain dead he is being.  Maybe when his newspaper's servers are smoking slag he will realize how much of a service Google is providing for him by only showing people a snip of the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should for just one day have Google news load all the articles in frames to show Murdock how absolutely brain dead he is being .
Maybe when his newspaper 's servers are smoking slag he will realize how much of a service Google is providing for him by only showing people a snip of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should for just one day have Google news load all the articles in frames to show Murdock how absolutely brain dead he is being.
Maybe when his newspaper's servers are smoking slag he will realize how much of a service Google is providing for him by only showing people a snip of the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040452</id>
	<title>Re:!Baffling... Bluffing</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1257771900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).</p></div><p>Google News still indexs WSJ.com and you can access all the WSJ articles with a google referrer.<br><a href="http://news.google.com/news/search?q=site\%3Awsj.com" title="google.com">http://news.google.com/news/search?q=site\%3Awsj.com</a> [google.com]</p><p>Though to be honest, I've never been blocked from accessing any WSJ articles.<br>If someone could show me a link that runs into the paywall, I'd be interested in trying it out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He can block WSJ.com , claim some victory , show it as a case model , and hope others buy his idea ( WSJ does not need Google , but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites ) .Google News still indexs WSJ.com and you can access all the WSJ articles with a google referrer.http : //news.google.com/news/search ? q = site \ % 3Awsj.com [ google.com ] Though to be honest , I 've never been blocked from accessing any WSJ articles.If someone could show me a link that runs into the paywall , I 'd be interested in trying it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).Google News still indexs WSJ.com and you can access all the WSJ articles with a google referrer.http://news.google.com/news/search?q=site\%3Awsj.com [google.com]Though to be honest, I've never been blocked from accessing any WSJ articles.If someone could show me a link that runs into the paywall, I'd be interested in trying it out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043322</id>
	<title>"Have you ever" taken airplane instead of horse?</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1257846000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Have you ever" taken a train or an airplane instead of a horse carriage in order to travel across a continent? And not paid the carriage owner as result?</p><p>What makes you think anyone had to pay for service fading away into obsolescence?</p><p>The modern copyright disputes have "The Red Flag Act" reminiscences all over them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Have you ever " taken a train or an airplane instead of a horse carriage in order to travel across a continent ?
And not paid the carriage owner as result ? What makes you think anyone had to pay for service fading away into obsolescence ? The modern copyright disputes have " The Red Flag Act " reminiscences all over them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Have you ever" taken a train or an airplane instead of a horse carriage in order to travel across a continent?
And not paid the carriage owner as result?What makes you think anyone had to pay for service fading away into obsolescence?The modern copyright disputes have "The Red Flag Act" reminiscences all over them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041480</id>
	<title>Re:Rephrase what he wants</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1257779400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that an analogy? It's hard to tell as it doesn't involve a car...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that an analogy ?
It 's hard to tell as it does n't involve a car.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that an analogy?
It's hard to tell as it doesn't involve a car...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039938</id>
	<title>Re:This is just baffling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently you're unfamiliar with Mr. Murdoch's favored style of "journalism". You simply state what you think *should* be true, and then cite it repeatedly as "some say X", possibly with a side of tits. USians are most familiar with this from Faux News, but it's apparently practiced throughout the media empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently you 're unfamiliar with Mr. Murdoch 's favored style of " journalism " .
You simply state what you think * should * be true , and then cite it repeatedly as " some say X " , possibly with a side of tits .
USians are most familiar with this from Faux News , but it 's apparently practiced throughout the media empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently you're unfamiliar with Mr. Murdoch's favored style of "journalism".
You simply state what you think *should* be true, and then cite it repeatedly as "some say X", possibly with a side of tits.
USians are most familiar with this from Faux News, but it's apparently practiced throughout the media empire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040546</id>
	<title>Re:Rephrase what he wants</title>
	<author>Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1257772440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a department store. It probably carries a lot of merchandise. But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door. And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries, or what he's got on sale this week. He feels that he should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.</p></div></blockquote><p>I believe that you just described a Costco.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a department store .
It probably carries a lot of merchandise .
But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door .
And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries , or what he 's got on sale this week .
He feels that he should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.I believe that you just described a Costco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a department store.
It probably carries a lot of merchandise.
But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door.
And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries, or what he's got on sale this week.
He feels that he should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.I believe that you just described a Costco.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044732</id>
	<title>Re:challenged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does a lack of a robots.txt file count as permission? I don't particularly like the senile old prick, but I am a little worried that he would have some kind of legal leverage by claiming that not dropping a robots.txt file in his server's shared directories did NOT constitute an implicit allowance of indexing of his sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a lack of a robots.txt file count as permission ?
I do n't particularly like the senile old prick , but I am a little worried that he would have some kind of legal leverage by claiming that not dropping a robots.txt file in his server 's shared directories did NOT constitute an implicit allowance of indexing of his sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a lack of a robots.txt file count as permission?
I don't particularly like the senile old prick, but I am a little worried that he would have some kind of legal leverage by claiming that not dropping a robots.txt file in his server's shared directories did NOT constitute an implicit allowance of indexing of his sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040318</id>
	<title>Do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257771180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throw up that robots.txt, and watch your business wither...</p><p>Here's the code for it:</p><p>User-agent: *<br>Disallow: /</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throw up that robots.txt , and watch your business wither...Here 's the code for it : User-agent : * Disallow : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throw up that robots.txt, and watch your business wither...Here's the code for it:User-agent: *Disallow: /</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040770</id>
	<title>How could this be bad?</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1257773820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) The morons have to pay the HeadMoron for their daily propaganda.
2) The rest of us don't even get any of it accidentally fed to us by Google.

I see this as win-win. Go Murdoch!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The morons have to pay the HeadMoron for their daily propaganda .
2 ) The rest of us do n't even get any of it accidentally fed to us by Google .
I see this as win-win .
Go Murdoch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The morons have to pay the HeadMoron for their daily propaganda.
2) The rest of us don't even get any of it accidentally fed to us by Google.
I see this as win-win.
Go Murdoch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041786</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't work.</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257782340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Murdoch would sue. More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.</p></div><p>Is that illegal now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch would sue .
More likely , Fox would sue , whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.Is that illegal now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch would sue.
More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.Is that illegal now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30059706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30046102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30047586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2121254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30046102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30047586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30049412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041786
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042618
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30053130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040556
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041126
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041334
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30052616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30041660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30044772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30059706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30039908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30042312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2121254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30040706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2121254.30043634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
