<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_12_1319209</id>
	<title>Your Opinion Counts At CNN &mdash; But Should It?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258035600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Some people love how <a href="http://www.micropersuasion.com/2008/09/cnn-twitters-it.html">CNN employs Twitter to engage its audience</a>. Not Steve Dahl. 'I am not interested in the take of @stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events,' <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-1111-steve-dahlnov11,0,1302887.column">complains Dahl of the access the media gives to Internet know-it-alls</a>. 'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keown/090707">any bonehead</a> with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Some people love how CNN employs Twitter to engage its audience .
Not Steve Dahl .
'I am not interested in the take of @ stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events, ' complains Dahl of the access the media gives to Internet know-it-alls .
'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news , not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer , a cable modem and a half-baked opinion .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Some people love how CNN employs Twitter to engage its audience.
Not Steve Dahl.
'I am not interested in the take of @stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events,' complains Dahl of the access the media gives to Internet know-it-alls.
'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078830</id>
	<title>Re:pot kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258020060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Steve Dahl destroyed disco! Doesn't that count for anything anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Steve Dahl destroyed disco !
Does n't that count for anything anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Steve Dahl destroyed disco!
Doesn't that count for anything anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30084550</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>edmsing</author>
	<datestamp>1258105860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been reported that the viewing audiance for CNN is the lowest among cable news outlets, not sure if this is true. What I do know that you can always tell if a station/program is on the low by how much crap is displayed on the screen. Have you seen CNN's screen lately...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been reported that the viewing audiance for CNN is the lowest among cable news outlets , not sure if this is true .
What I do know that you can always tell if a station/program is on the low by how much crap is displayed on the screen .
Have you seen CNN 's screen lately.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been reported that the viewing audiance for CNN is the lowest among cable news outlets, not sure if this is true.
What I do know that you can always tell if a station/program is on the low by how much crap is displayed on the screen.
Have you seen CNN's screen lately...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073080</id>
	<title>You know there's a problem when . . .</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1258043100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Trends data over in the past year shows that <a href="http://www.google.com/trends?q=jon+gosselin\%2C+iran+election\%2C+healthcare+reform\%2C+iraq+war&amp;ctab=0&amp;geo=all&amp;date=2009&amp;sort=0" title="google.com">searches for "Jon Gosselin" exceed searches for "iran election", "healthcare reform", and "iraq war"</a> [google.com],. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Trends data over in the past year shows that searches for " Jon Gosselin " exceed searches for " iran election " , " healthcare reform " , and " iraq war " [ google.com ] , .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Trends data over in the past year shows that searches for "Jon Gosselin" exceed searches for "iran election", "healthcare reform", and "iraq war" [google.com],.
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072544</id>
	<title>"Value add" of a news organization?  Editing.</title>
	<author>herrlich\_98</author>
	<datestamp>1258041000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand that 24 hours news sites need to fill a lot of air time or that news web sites would like something new for you to look at each time you refresh but not everyone wants to follow the news as it happens and sort it out themselves.</p><p>Do you want to follow the balloon boy story, be fooled and then read about the sorted details as it unfolds... or maybe I just want to read about it a few days later wrapped (mostly) up.</p><p>Do you want to read the entire stream of new articles on digg.com when they have 0 diggs or do you only want to read them later when others have dugg them and you can read the cream of the crop?</p><p>Why do you read Slashdot?  Because the quality of the articles and rated comments is higher than randomly surfing the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that 24 hours news sites need to fill a lot of air time or that news web sites would like something new for you to look at each time you refresh but not everyone wants to follow the news as it happens and sort it out themselves.Do you want to follow the balloon boy story , be fooled and then read about the sorted details as it unfolds... or maybe I just want to read about it a few days later wrapped ( mostly ) up.Do you want to read the entire stream of new articles on digg.com when they have 0 diggs or do you only want to read them later when others have dugg them and you can read the cream of the crop ? Why do you read Slashdot ?
Because the quality of the articles and rated comments is higher than randomly surfing the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that 24 hours news sites need to fill a lot of air time or that news web sites would like something new for you to look at each time you refresh but not everyone wants to follow the news as it happens and sort it out themselves.Do you want to follow the balloon boy story, be fooled and then read about the sorted details as it unfolds... or maybe I just want to read about it a few days later wrapped (mostly) up.Do you want to read the entire stream of new articles on digg.com when they have 0 diggs or do you only want to read them later when others have dugg them and you can read the cream of the crop?Why do you read Slashdot?
Because the quality of the articles and rated comments is higher than randomly surfing the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30090236</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258142880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion</p></div><p>Yeah!  That is <b>slashdot's</b> job!!</p></div><p>by Anonymous Coward</p><p>"I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news,"</p><p>Oh, wow. My condolences. How disappointed you must be.<br>OTOH, they may gather the news, but their digestive system needs a major overhaul. It's not good to say your company runs second. To MSNBC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news , not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer , a cable modem and a half-baked opinionYeah !
That is slashdot 's job !
! by Anonymous Coward " I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news , " Oh , wow .
My condolences .
How disappointed you must be.OTOH , they may gather the news , but their digestive system needs a major overhaul .
It 's not good to say your company runs second .
To MSNBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinionYeah!
That is slashdot's job!
!by Anonymous Coward"I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news,"Oh, wow.
My condolences.
How disappointed you must be.OTOH, they may gather the news, but their digestive system needs a major overhaul.
It's not good to say your company runs second.
To MSNBC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076160</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Curmudgeonlyoldbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1258053780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the BBC are at it as well.  Their "Have Your Say" section on the website is truly muppetastic:</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking\_point/default.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking\_point/default.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>The best bits are here:<br><a href="http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/" title="ifyoulikei...ethere.com">http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/</a> [ifyoulikei...ethere.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the BBC are at it as well .
Their " Have Your Say " section on the website is truly muppetastic : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking \ _point/default.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] The best bits are here : http : //ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ [ ifyoulikei...ethere.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the BBC are at it as well.
Their "Have Your Say" section on the website is truly muppetastic:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking\_point/default.stm [bbc.co.uk]The best bits are here:http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ [ifyoulikei...ethere.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1258040580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense. Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom." Web forums have been politicized by partisans.  Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.</p><p>Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology (usually) and has a moderation system.  A general news site with any sort of moderation? Madness.  I can tolerate slashdot, metafilter, and most of reddit.  Everything else is so terrible it makes you realize that crap like "OMG Ghost hunters is the REALZ" or "Vaccines cause autism!!!" is how a lot of people think and critical thinking and a little literacy are the exception, not the norm.</p><p>Dahl is right. While the media needs a check agaisnt bias and poor reporting, I doubt these twitter comments are helping. Looks like they are just lowing the signal to noise ratio even more.  I guess anything to help make Wolf Blitzer look smart. I guess Neil Postman has finally been proved right:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing\_Ourselves\_to\_Death" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing\_Ourselves\_to\_Death</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense .
Its housewives and teens giving us their " wisdom .
" Web forums have been politicized by partisans .
Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology ( usually ) and has a moderation system .
A general news site with any sort of moderation ?
Madness. I can tolerate slashdot , metafilter , and most of reddit .
Everything else is so terrible it makes you realize that crap like " OMG Ghost hunters is the REALZ " or " Vaccines cause autism ! ! !
" is how a lot of people think and critical thinking and a little literacy are the exception , not the norm.Dahl is right .
While the media needs a check agaisnt bias and poor reporting , I doubt these twitter comments are helping .
Looks like they are just lowing the signal to noise ratio even more .
I guess anything to help make Wolf Blitzer look smart .
I guess Neil Postman has finally been proved right : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing \ _Ourselves \ _to \ _Death [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense.
Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom.
" Web forums have been politicized by partisans.
Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology (usually) and has a moderation system.
A general news site with any sort of moderation?
Madness.  I can tolerate slashdot, metafilter, and most of reddit.
Everything else is so terrible it makes you realize that crap like "OMG Ghost hunters is the REALZ" or "Vaccines cause autism!!!
" is how a lot of people think and critical thinking and a little literacy are the exception, not the norm.Dahl is right.
While the media needs a check agaisnt bias and poor reporting, I doubt these twitter comments are helping.
Looks like they are just lowing the signal to noise ratio even more.
I guess anything to help make Wolf Blitzer look smart.
I guess Neil Postman has finally been proved right:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing\_Ourselves\_to\_Death [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072236</id>
	<title>IMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, *MY* opinion should *always* count.</p><p>But that's just my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , * MY * opinion should * always * count.But that 's just my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, *MY* opinion should *always* count.But that's just my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072620</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1258041300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,</p></div><p>That's why I stopped watching CNN on TV.  The news/fluff ratio is just above that on E!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,That 's why I stopped watching CNN on TV .
The news/fluff ratio is just above that on E !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,That's why I stopped watching CNN on TV.
The news/fluff ratio is just above that on E!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30090416</id>
	<title>HA!</title>
	<author>catdevnull</author>
	<datestamp>1258143420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.'"</p><p>--yeah! That's what Slashdot is for!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news , not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer , a cable modem and a half-baked opinion. ' " --yeah !
That 's what Slashdot is for !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.'"--yeah!
That's what Slashdot is for!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074504</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>fatboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258048980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>to realize that "to yell is to sell", [fear that is]</i></p><p>Not just fear. Any of the powerful motivators. Ego, greed, envy, sloth, and lust are among the other things used to sell the news as well as other products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to realize that " to yell is to sell " , [ fear that is ] Not just fear .
Any of the powerful motivators .
Ego , greed , envy , sloth , and lust are among the other things used to sell the news as well as other products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to realize that "to yell is to sell", [fear that is]Not just fear.
Any of the powerful motivators.
Ego, greed, envy, sloth, and lust are among the other things used to sell the news as well as other products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073556</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>X\_Bones</author>
	<datestamp>1258045080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary.</i> <br> <br>Then your opinions will be just as knee-jerk and uninformed as those of the people you're berating.  The only difference is that you're keeping them to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else.<br> <br>It takes work to keep yourself informed, and since the news media is more interested in advertising revenue than informing the public, that work now has to be done by you (and me, and anyone else who wants to know more than the superficialities of an issue).  Sure it's hard and sometimes depressing to wade through the all crap from @bootycakes and friends, but you will almost always find a point or two that you hadn't considered before, or a link to an analysis piece on another site, or maybe a post from an expert in the field that backs up or refutes a claim from the original piece.  These are the things that help you understand the nuances of a story, which is what you need before you can claim that you're actually informed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary .
Then your opinions will be just as knee-jerk and uninformed as those of the people you 're berating .
The only difference is that you 're keeping them to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else .
It takes work to keep yourself informed , and since the news media is more interested in advertising revenue than informing the public , that work now has to be done by you ( and me , and anyone else who wants to know more than the superficialities of an issue ) .
Sure it 's hard and sometimes depressing to wade through the all crap from @ bootycakes and friends , but you will almost always find a point or two that you had n't considered before , or a link to an analysis piece on another site , or maybe a post from an expert in the field that backs up or refutes a claim from the original piece .
These are the things that help you understand the nuances of a story , which is what you need before you can claim that you 're actually informed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary.
Then your opinions will be just as knee-jerk and uninformed as those of the people you're berating.
The only difference is that you're keeping them to yourself instead of inflicting them on everyone else.
It takes work to keep yourself informed, and since the news media is more interested in advertising revenue than informing the public, that work now has to be done by you (and me, and anyone else who wants to know more than the superficialities of an issue).
Sure it's hard and sometimes depressing to wade through the all crap from @bootycakes and friends, but you will almost always find a point or two that you hadn't considered before, or a link to an analysis piece on another site, or maybe a post from an expert in the field that backs up or refutes a claim from the original piece.
These are the things that help you understand the nuances of a story, which is what you need before you can claim that you're actually informed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072168</id>
	<title>Ironic Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This question on a site like this seems incredibly ironic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This question on a site like this seems incredibly ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This question on a site like this seems incredibly ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072246</id>
	<title>Re:Who's Steve Dahl</title>
	<author>jdpars</author>
	<datestamp>1258039740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some idiot with a computer and a cable modem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some idiot with a computer and a cable modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some idiot with a computer and a cable modem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</id>
	<title>Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion</p></div><p>Yeah!  That is <b>slashdot's</b> job!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news , not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer , a cable modem and a half-baked opinionYeah !
That is slashdot 's job !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinionYeah!
That is slashdot's job!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072906</id>
	<title>Bad Expectation</title>
	<author>Dotren</author>
	<datestamp>1258042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news</p></div><p>That is his first problem right there.  They don't gather news, they gather entertainment and they present that entertainment with whatever spin they feel will best cause the effect they're looking for whether that be sympathy, outrage, shock, etc.</p><p>Don't get me wrong either, I'm not saying CNN is the only one like this and this isn't a political viewpoint where I'm categorizing news media into good, bad, left, or right.  I'm saying all "news" programs are like this and have been this way for a while.</p><p>As for the public interaction via Twitter I don't see how that is a bad thing.  In fact I think its a great way for them to keep in contact with their audience, live, and get the pulse of the public.  I think it's great that someone at CNN is at least making an attempt at keeping up with some current technology trends and have found a way to use it as a possibly useful communication tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the newsThat is his first problem right there .
They do n't gather news , they gather entertainment and they present that entertainment with whatever spin they feel will best cause the effect they 're looking for whether that be sympathy , outrage , shock , etc.Do n't get me wrong either , I 'm not saying CNN is the only one like this and this is n't a political viewpoint where I 'm categorizing news media into good , bad , left , or right .
I 'm saying all " news " programs are like this and have been this way for a while.As for the public interaction via Twitter I do n't see how that is a bad thing .
In fact I think its a great way for them to keep in contact with their audience , live , and get the pulse of the public .
I think it 's great that someone at CNN is at least making an attempt at keeping up with some current technology trends and have found a way to use it as a possibly useful communication tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the newsThat is his first problem right there.
They don't gather news, they gather entertainment and they present that entertainment with whatever spin they feel will best cause the effect they're looking for whether that be sympathy, outrage, shock, etc.Don't get me wrong either, I'm not saying CNN is the only one like this and this isn't a political viewpoint where I'm categorizing news media into good, bad, left, or right.
I'm saying all "news" programs are like this and have been this way for a while.As for the public interaction via Twitter I don't see how that is a bad thing.
In fact I think its a great way for them to keep in contact with their audience, live, and get the pulse of the public.
I think it's great that someone at CNN is at least making an attempt at keeping up with some current technology trends and have found a way to use it as a possibly useful communication tool.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178</id>
	<title>Who's Steve Dahl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and why should I care...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and why should I care... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and why should I care...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30080464</id>
	<title>CNN != News</title>
	<author>BlindSpot</author>
	<datestamp>1258025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news</p></div><p>Really?  You must have just woken up from a prolonged coma, because CNN hasn't done that with any kind of respectability for the past 8 years, 2 months, and 1 day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the newsReally ?
You must have just woken up from a prolonged coma , because CNN has n't done that with any kind of respectability for the past 8 years , 2 months , and 1 day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the newsReally?
You must have just woken up from a prolonged coma, because CNN hasn't done that with any kind of respectability for the past 8 years, 2 months, and 1 day.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074196</id>
	<title>Re:So how do we fix it?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1258047960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you would trade the advertising market for government control?  Why wouldn't the government just revoke the pass from anyone that was critical of current government policy?  As long as everyone played nice, by the current administration rules, they would be fine - but step out of line and you are canceled.</p><p>No, I don't think more government control is a good idea.  I think we have had quite enough of government control - as weak and ineffectual as it has been - for a while.</p><p>We are about to cede control over health care economics and availability over to the government to the cheering of the few.  We certainly don't need to give up informing people along with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you would trade the advertising market for government control ?
Why would n't the government just revoke the pass from anyone that was critical of current government policy ?
As long as everyone played nice , by the current administration rules , they would be fine - but step out of line and you are canceled.No , I do n't think more government control is a good idea .
I think we have had quite enough of government control - as weak and ineffectual as it has been - for a while.We are about to cede control over health care economics and availability over to the government to the cheering of the few .
We certainly do n't need to give up informing people along with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you would trade the advertising market for government control?
Why wouldn't the government just revoke the pass from anyone that was critical of current government policy?
As long as everyone played nice, by the current administration rules, they would be fine - but step out of line and you are canceled.No, I don't think more government control is a good idea.
I think we have had quite enough of government control - as weak and ineffectual as it has been - for a while.We are about to cede control over health care economics and availability over to the government to the cheering of the few.
We certainly don't need to give up informing people along with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076032</id>
	<title>Steve Dahl? Make that man shut-up already!</title>
	<author>bhodikhan</author>
	<datestamp>1258053420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I don't care what Steve Dahl has to say either. When I saw his name I remembered his days as the leader of the 'disc demolition army' and a fairly lousy radio personality. If I don't care to hear what some clown on twitter has to say about the news on CNN I sure as hell don't care what Steve Dahl has to say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do n't care what Steve Dahl has to say either .
When I saw his name I remembered his days as the leader of the 'disc demolition army ' and a fairly lousy radio personality .
If I do n't care to hear what some clown on twitter has to say about the news on CNN I sure as hell do n't care what Steve Dahl has to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I don't care what Steve Dahl has to say either.
When I saw his name I remembered his days as the leader of the 'disc demolition army' and a fairly lousy radio personality.
If I don't care to hear what some clown on twitter has to say about the news on CNN I sure as hell don't care what Steve Dahl has to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073508</id>
	<title>I'm more surprised...</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1258044780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that someone still actually watches CNN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that someone still actually watches CNN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that someone still actually watches CNN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073758</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258046100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMEN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMEN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMEN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077188</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258057260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to say it but fox is just as bad as cnn when it comes to fact checking.  The only reason I can think that you like it is because it validates your point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say it but fox is just as bad as cnn when it comes to fact checking .
The only reason I can think that you like it is because it validates your point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say it but fox is just as bad as cnn when it comes to fact checking.
The only reason I can think that you like it is because it validates your point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</id>
	<title>No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1258039500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. News in America is dead. It turned into entertainment a long time ago. It isn't so much about news anymore as it is about yellow journalism or picking a station that validate one's political views. I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news.
<br> <br>
I would say that Edward R Murrow is rolling in his grave, but he was cremated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
News in America is dead .
It turned into entertainment a long time ago .
It is n't so much about news anymore as it is about yellow journalism or picking a station that validate one 's political views .
I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news .
I would say that Edward R Murrow is rolling in his grave , but he was cremated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
News in America is dead.
It turned into entertainment a long time ago.
It isn't so much about news anymore as it is about yellow journalism or picking a station that validate one's political views.
I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news.
I would say that Edward R Murrow is rolling in his grave, but he was cremated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074074</id>
	<title>Old coot</title>
	<author>pete6677</author>
	<datestamp>1258047540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.'"</p><p>That's funny; Steve Dahl pretty much described himself there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news , not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer , a cable modem and a half-baked opinion .
' " That 's funny ; Steve Dahl pretty much described himself there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.
'"That's funny; Steve Dahl pretty much described himself there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073574</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258045140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously."</p><p>Staring? You must be new here.</p><p>(Yes! Nine years on slashdot and I can finally say that with some authority... says me, anyways).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" News services have become such an opinion mill that it 's starting to make it hard to take them seriously. " Staring ?
You must be new here. ( Yes !
Nine years on slashdot and I can finally say that with some authority... says me , anyways ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously."Staring?
You must be new here.(Yes!
Nine years on slashdot and I can finally say that with some authority... says me, anyways).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072458</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically enough, CNN's "opinion" section offers the chance for "registered members" to discuss/counterpoint the opinion columns. The only problem is that previously they've required moderators to "approve" each individual response (which never happened since their "moderators" were either too busy or too lazy, and articles were automatically flagged to "topic closed" after about 12 hours anyways), and since the site redesign they instead have someone "patrolling" as well as automatic deletion of any comment flagged by other users as supposedly "abusive."</p><p>The end result has been a copy of Slashdot's mod system but on steroids, or perhaps of Digg's "Bury Brigades": almost no comment disagreeing with a columnist ever has a shred of a chance of remaining. It's very similar to what happens here - Slashdot's system could be greatly improved by shifting to a 10-point positive scale and eliminating the mod-down option (thus getting rid of the  "bury brigade" phenomenon entirely).</p><p>The other option is a "see how many positives and negatives a response has without burying anything" format, similar to Slate's forums (although Slate's forums require you to click an extra link in the article just to see responses, so they don't work too well either).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically enough , CNN 's " opinion " section offers the chance for " registered members " to discuss/counterpoint the opinion columns .
The only problem is that previously they 've required moderators to " approve " each individual response ( which never happened since their " moderators " were either too busy or too lazy , and articles were automatically flagged to " topic closed " after about 12 hours anyways ) , and since the site redesign they instead have someone " patrolling " as well as automatic deletion of any comment flagged by other users as supposedly " abusive .
" The end result has been a copy of Slashdot 's mod system but on steroids , or perhaps of Digg 's " Bury Brigades " : almost no comment disagreeing with a columnist ever has a shred of a chance of remaining .
It 's very similar to what happens here - Slashdot 's system could be greatly improved by shifting to a 10-point positive scale and eliminating the mod-down option ( thus getting rid of the " bury brigade " phenomenon entirely ) .The other option is a " see how many positives and negatives a response has without burying anything " format , similar to Slate 's forums ( although Slate 's forums require you to click an extra link in the article just to see responses , so they do n't work too well either ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically enough, CNN's "opinion" section offers the chance for "registered members" to discuss/counterpoint the opinion columns.
The only problem is that previously they've required moderators to "approve" each individual response (which never happened since their "moderators" were either too busy or too lazy, and articles were automatically flagged to "topic closed" after about 12 hours anyways), and since the site redesign they instead have someone "patrolling" as well as automatic deletion of any comment flagged by other users as supposedly "abusive.
"The end result has been a copy of Slashdot's mod system but on steroids, or perhaps of Digg's "Bury Brigades": almost no comment disagreeing with a columnist ever has a shred of a chance of remaining.
It's very similar to what happens here - Slashdot's system could be greatly improved by shifting to a 10-point positive scale and eliminating the mod-down option (thus getting rid of the  "bury brigade" phenomenon entirely).The other option is a "see how many positives and negatives a response has without burying anything" format, similar to Slate's forums (although Slate's forums require you to click an extra link in the article just to see responses, so they don't work too well either).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072674</id>
	<title>Re:The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>asylumx</author>
	<datestamp>1258041540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Chicago Tribune is a public medium?  I'm pretty sure you can't just send them a column and expect them to print it, but let me know if you find otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chicago Tribune is a public medium ?
I 'm pretty sure you ca n't just send them a column and expect them to print it , but let me know if you find otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chicago Tribune is a public medium?
I'm pretty sure you can't just send them a column and expect them to print it, but let me know if you find otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072444</id>
	<title>Spot On</title>
	<author>keithltaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1258040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't tell you how many times I've said that exact thing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell you how many times I 've said that exact thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell you how many times I've said that exact thing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073934</id>
	<title>Re:The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1258046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>let me know if you find otherwise.</i></p><p><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/" title="chicagotribune.com">Found Otherwise.</a> [chicagotribune.com]</p><p>Even so, I'm fairly certain that OP meant "available to the public for viewing" not "open for anyone to publish in".  I assume CNN asserts some editorial control over the tweets that it publishes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let me know if you find otherwise.Found Otherwise .
[ chicagotribune.com ] Even so , I 'm fairly certain that OP meant " available to the public for viewing " not " open for anyone to publish in " .
I assume CNN asserts some editorial control over the tweets that it publishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let me know if you find otherwise.Found Otherwise.
[chicagotribune.com]Even so, I'm fairly certain that OP meant "available to the public for viewing" not "open for anyone to publish in".
I assume CNN asserts some editorial control over the tweets that it publishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076646</id>
	<title>Ummm....</title>
	<author>Questy</author>
	<datestamp>1258055340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's a "modem"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a " modem " ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a "modem"?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073662</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Doctor\_Jest</author>
	<datestamp>1258045620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree news is turning into crap these days, it is still cyclical.  "Yellow Journalism" is not new, and we can remember back as far as the Spanish-American War ("Remember the Maine!"  and the rest of that quote being "to Hell with Spain!") that news was manufactured with great success.  There was a period where news became unemotional and almost robotic, with Murrow, Cronkite, and others like them taking emotion (or at least most of it) from reporting.  But as the pendulum swings (and we have more and more outlets competing for the same sets of eyes/ears), we return to sensationalist news and fearmongering that has always been just below (or right on top of) the surface of our news diet.  Just look at the amount of "Celebrity Gossip" shows and such that exist today.  It sells...  Which is a shame.
<br> <br>
We've always had idiots, and LOTS of them, but with the advent of Twitter and high-speed internet, they're no longer someone else's problem.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  It's like replacing the bulb in a dingy basement.  Sometimes it is best just to leave the bulb burnt out.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree news is turning into crap these days , it is still cyclical .
" Yellow Journalism " is not new , and we can remember back as far as the Spanish-American War ( " Remember the Maine !
" and the rest of that quote being " to Hell with Spain !
" ) that news was manufactured with great success .
There was a period where news became unemotional and almost robotic , with Murrow , Cronkite , and others like them taking emotion ( or at least most of it ) from reporting .
But as the pendulum swings ( and we have more and more outlets competing for the same sets of eyes/ears ) , we return to sensationalist news and fearmongering that has always been just below ( or right on top of ) the surface of our news diet .
Just look at the amount of " Celebrity Gossip " shows and such that exist today .
It sells... Which is a shame .
We 've always had idiots , and LOTS of them , but with the advent of Twitter and high-speed internet , they 're no longer someone else 's problem .
: ) It 's like replacing the bulb in a dingy basement .
Sometimes it is best just to leave the bulb burnt out .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree news is turning into crap these days, it is still cyclical.
"Yellow Journalism" is not new, and we can remember back as far as the Spanish-American War ("Remember the Maine!
"  and the rest of that quote being "to Hell with Spain!
") that news was manufactured with great success.
There was a period where news became unemotional and almost robotic, with Murrow, Cronkite, and others like them taking emotion (or at least most of it) from reporting.
But as the pendulum swings (and we have more and more outlets competing for the same sets of eyes/ears), we return to sensationalist news and fearmongering that has always been just below (or right on top of) the surface of our news diet.
Just look at the amount of "Celebrity Gossip" shows and such that exist today.
It sells...  Which is a shame.
We've always had idiots, and LOTS of them, but with the advent of Twitter and high-speed internet, they're no longer someone else's problem.
:)  It's like replacing the bulb in a dingy basement.
Sometimes it is best just to leave the bulb burnt out.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073480</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258044660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much. I always thought that the idiocy I saw on gaming forums in the 90s was harmless because it was contained in videogame forums. I mean, things as stupid as platform wars would go away once people would discuss serious things like the federal budget, right? The yahoos going "Nintendo 4eva!" would disappear, right?</p><p>I'm pretty convinced now that I was wrong on that. The political discourse I'm seeing now uses the same terminology and rhetorical constructs as those used in the platform wars. It's all hot air, partisanship and arguing by putting others down. Using twitter comments on the air is worsening the discourse because it merely gives an official outlet to a lot of people who really have no clue, don't know they have no clue, and don't even care they have no clue. But they are now convinced that because they either got on the air or someone they agree with got on the air means that this is the same as Kissinger agreeing with them.</p><p>I'm not saying that Twitter can't be used to send interesting comments. I'm saying, however, that Twitter is used by the media in the worst possible way right now: to further turn news into entertainment of the worst kind: reality TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much .
I always thought that the idiocy I saw on gaming forums in the 90s was harmless because it was contained in videogame forums .
I mean , things as stupid as platform wars would go away once people would discuss serious things like the federal budget , right ?
The yahoos going " Nintendo 4eva !
" would disappear , right ? I 'm pretty convinced now that I was wrong on that .
The political discourse I 'm seeing now uses the same terminology and rhetorical constructs as those used in the platform wars .
It 's all hot air , partisanship and arguing by putting others down .
Using twitter comments on the air is worsening the discourse because it merely gives an official outlet to a lot of people who really have no clue , do n't know they have no clue , and do n't even care they have no clue .
But they are now convinced that because they either got on the air or someone they agree with got on the air means that this is the same as Kissinger agreeing with them.I 'm not saying that Twitter ca n't be used to send interesting comments .
I 'm saying , however , that Twitter is used by the media in the worst possible way right now : to further turn news into entertainment of the worst kind : reality TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much.
I always thought that the idiocy I saw on gaming forums in the 90s was harmless because it was contained in videogame forums.
I mean, things as stupid as platform wars would go away once people would discuss serious things like the federal budget, right?
The yahoos going "Nintendo 4eva!
" would disappear, right?I'm pretty convinced now that I was wrong on that.
The political discourse I'm seeing now uses the same terminology and rhetorical constructs as those used in the platform wars.
It's all hot air, partisanship and arguing by putting others down.
Using twitter comments on the air is worsening the discourse because it merely gives an official outlet to a lot of people who really have no clue, don't know they have no clue, and don't even care they have no clue.
But they are now convinced that because they either got on the air or someone they agree with got on the air means that this is the same as Kissinger agreeing with them.I'm not saying that Twitter can't be used to send interesting comments.
I'm saying, however, that Twitter is used by the media in the worst possible way right now: to further turn news into entertainment of the worst kind: reality TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073944</id>
	<title>Forget mainstream media, just stop watching it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that since mainstream media has started its decline (thanks to the internet) they take every chance to de-credit 'online journalism' or 'the people' as 'news' (which they themselves defined many a years ago). Hundreds of years ago there was no 'media', no 'mainstream news'. News traveled via word of mouth, and once again, that has become more effective (thanks to the advent of the internet).

Fuck 'the news'. Best law spreading medium 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that since mainstream media has started its decline ( thanks to the internet ) they take every chance to de-credit 'online journalism ' or 'the people ' as 'news ' ( which they themselves defined many a years ago ) .
Hundreds of years ago there was no 'media ' , no 'mainstream news' .
News traveled via word of mouth , and once again , that has become more effective ( thanks to the advent of the internet ) .
Fuck 'the news' .
Best law spreading medium 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that since mainstream media has started its decline (thanks to the internet) they take every chance to de-credit 'online journalism' or 'the people' as 'news' (which they themselves defined many a years ago).
Hundreds of years ago there was no 'media', no 'mainstream news'.
News traveled via word of mouth, and once again, that has become more effective (thanks to the advent of the internet).
Fuck 'the news'.
Best law spreading medium 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076930</id>
	<title>I agree with TFA</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258056420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boneheads with computers belong on Slashdot, not CNN.
</p><p>I want my boneheads kept in one place so I don't confuse them with real news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boneheads with computers belong on Slashdot , not CNN .
I want my boneheads kept in one place so I do n't confuse them with real news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boneheads with computers belong on Slashdot, not CNN.
I want my boneheads kept in one place so I don't confuse them with real news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072214</id>
	<title>A simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't like it, don't read it.  Christ, the only reason why I read user comments on CNN, or Amazon reviews, or anything else where the wisdom of the masses extrudes itself is an urge to rubberneck.  It isn't as if they're touting these commentaries as fact-- it's just a poorly moderated scribble board, and it says so on the flap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't like it , do n't read it .
Christ , the only reason why I read user comments on CNN , or Amazon reviews , or anything else where the wisdom of the masses extrudes itself is an urge to rubberneck .
It is n't as if they 're touting these commentaries as fact-- it 's just a poorly moderated scribble board , and it says so on the flap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't like it, don't read it.
Christ, the only reason why I read user comments on CNN, or Amazon reviews, or anything else where the wisdom of the masses extrudes itself is an urge to rubberneck.
It isn't as if they're touting these commentaries as fact-- it's just a poorly moderated scribble board, and it says so on the flap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081326</id>
	<title>This is a dumb debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258029720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ultimate test of viewer opinion at CNN is CNN's viewership, and CNN's viewership is dead last.  Clearly, they're doing something wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ultimate test of viewer opinion at CNN is CNN 's viewership , and CNN 's viewership is dead last .
Clearly , they 're doing something wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ultimate test of viewer opinion at CNN is CNN's viewership, and CNN's viewership is dead last.
Clearly, they're doing something wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072966</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Chelloveck</author>
	<datestamp>1258042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense. Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom." Web forums have been politicized by partisans. Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.</p></div></blockquote><p>What a typical left-wing liberal comment. The government lets people like you post freely to the internet, so how can we trust them to run our healthcare system? I guess that's what you get when you vote a socialist Muslim Kenyan national into the White House.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense .
Its housewives and teens giving us their " wisdom .
" Web forums have been politicized by partisans .
Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.What a typical left-wing liberal comment .
The government lets people like you post freely to the internet , so how can we trust them to run our healthcare system ?
I guess that 's what you get when you vote a socialist Muslim Kenyan national into the White House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense.
Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom.
" Web forums have been politicized by partisans.
Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.What a typical left-wing liberal comment.
The government lets people like you post freely to the internet, so how can we trust them to run our healthcare system?
I guess that's what you get when you vote a socialist Muslim Kenyan national into the White House.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072360</id>
	<title>Filters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course CNN filters any comments that don't match it's agenda so how would you ever get any thought provoking comments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course CNN filters any comments that do n't match it 's agenda so how would you ever get any thought provoking comments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course CNN filters any comments that don't match it's agenda so how would you ever get any thought provoking comments?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072294</id>
	<title>experts on the news?</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1258039860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess you didn't see wolf blitzer on celebrity jeopardy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you did n't see wolf blitzer on celebrity jeopardy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you didn't see wolf blitzer on celebrity jeopardy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073548</id>
	<title>Re:So how do we fix it?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258045080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mentioned this idea in a different post. I was thinking something semi-self-regulating, like the Bar is for lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mentioned this idea in a different post .
I was thinking something semi-self-regulating , like the Bar is for lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mentioned this idea in a different post.
I was thinking something semi-self-regulating, like the Bar is for lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073410</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258044420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field.</i> <br>
<br>
Yeah! Leave those discussion to those of us who have PhDs in Universal Engineering!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field .
Yeah ! Leave those discussion to those of us who have PhDs in Universal Engineering !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field.
Yeah! Leave those discussion to those of us who have PhDs in Universal Engineering!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072726</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258041780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news.</p><p>I have a local station that plays news from all over the world, Russia, NHK (China or Korea - I forget which), Deutsche Welle, some French news show, and of course BBC.  I don't see any difference between these shows and the 6:30 ABC, CBS, NBC broadcasts.  They all follow pretty much the same format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news.I have a local station that plays news from all over the world , Russia , NHK ( China or Korea - I forget which ) , Deutsche Welle , some French news show , and of course BBC .
I do n't see any difference between these shows and the 6 : 30 ABC , CBS , NBC broadcasts .
They all follow pretty much the same format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news.I have a local station that plays news from all over the world, Russia, NHK (China or Korea - I forget which), Deutsche Welle, some French news show, and of course BBC.
I don't see any difference between these shows and the 6:30 ABC, CBS, NBC broadcasts.
They all follow pretty much the same format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224</id>
	<title>The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How funny is that: A guy airing his opinion on a public medium about how other people's opinions shouldn't be aired on public media...</p><p>We need a CNN story on this (complete with tweets) to bring things full circle.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How funny is that : A guy airing his opinion on a public medium about how other people 's opinions should n't be aired on public media...We need a CNN story on this ( complete with tweets ) to bring things full circle.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How funny is that: A guy airing his opinion on a public medium about how other people's opinions shouldn't be aired on public media...We need a CNN story on this (complete with tweets) to bring things full circle.-b</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072370</id>
	<title>It's the economy stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a way to cover airtime without any extra cost. Anyone watching BBC and CNN can really see the difference in reporting style, CNN will beat a single story to death, spending a better part of the hour discussing it, while BBC will spend at most 10 minutes on any one story, provide the information and move one. CNN is really infotainment, where it doesn't matter what the news is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a way to cover airtime without any extra cost .
Anyone watching BBC and CNN can really see the difference in reporting style , CNN will beat a single story to death , spending a better part of the hour discussing it , while BBC will spend at most 10 minutes on any one story , provide the information and move one .
CNN is really infotainment , where it does n't matter what the news is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a way to cover airtime without any extra cost.
Anyone watching BBC and CNN can really see the difference in reporting style, CNN will beat a single story to death, spending a better part of the hour discussing it, while BBC will spend at most 10 minutes on any one story, provide the information and move one.
CNN is really infotainment, where it doesn't matter what the news is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072300</id>
	<title>Get Off Your Own Lawn Old Timer</title>
	<author>gadlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1258039920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't a story, this is one cranky old guy being cranky because he 'did six hour shifts at Podunk in a small newspaper' and his opinion should count more than Joe SixPack with a Computer and a Modem (we've got cable and fiber these days dude!).  Well, the point of the matter is that CNN and others who use the typed in opinions of others gets perhaps a chance to get a different perspective than that given by Cranky Chicago pundit who doesn't get to be the wise old pundit any longer. Shooting at Fort Hood? Indeed I think I would like to hear the insights of people who I don't know, - actually have been to Fort Hood or who are more familiar with the potential situation than the idiots/ex military pundits they normally bring to ponder and muse over 'how far the PX is from the baseball fields' as seen for the first time by them by looking at the Google Map. You know, especially on those breaking situations where Wolf Blitzer is trying to put the scariest and most ominous slant on every bit of information, a chance to hear the words of actual real people instead of just the usual crowd of Emotional Vampires we usually get is refreshing. And old dude who resents that the guy who is stationed at Fort Hood and who texts in an opinion, well get over yourself, it's a Brave New World after all where the old ways are being changed and remade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a story , this is one cranky old guy being cranky because he 'did six hour shifts at Podunk in a small newspaper ' and his opinion should count more than Joe SixPack with a Computer and a Modem ( we 've got cable and fiber these days dude ! ) .
Well , the point of the matter is that CNN and others who use the typed in opinions of others gets perhaps a chance to get a different perspective than that given by Cranky Chicago pundit who does n't get to be the wise old pundit any longer .
Shooting at Fort Hood ?
Indeed I think I would like to hear the insights of people who I do n't know , - actually have been to Fort Hood or who are more familiar with the potential situation than the idiots/ex military pundits they normally bring to ponder and muse over 'how far the PX is from the baseball fields ' as seen for the first time by them by looking at the Google Map .
You know , especially on those breaking situations where Wolf Blitzer is trying to put the scariest and most ominous slant on every bit of information , a chance to hear the words of actual real people instead of just the usual crowd of Emotional Vampires we usually get is refreshing .
And old dude who resents that the guy who is stationed at Fort Hood and who texts in an opinion , well get over yourself , it 's a Brave New World after all where the old ways are being changed and remade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a story, this is one cranky old guy being cranky because he 'did six hour shifts at Podunk in a small newspaper' and his opinion should count more than Joe SixPack with a Computer and a Modem (we've got cable and fiber these days dude!).
Well, the point of the matter is that CNN and others who use the typed in opinions of others gets perhaps a chance to get a different perspective than that given by Cranky Chicago pundit who doesn't get to be the wise old pundit any longer.
Shooting at Fort Hood?
Indeed I think I would like to hear the insights of people who I don't know, - actually have been to Fort Hood or who are more familiar with the potential situation than the idiots/ex military pundits they normally bring to ponder and muse over 'how far the PX is from the baseball fields' as seen for the first time by them by looking at the Google Map.
You know, especially on those breaking situations where Wolf Blitzer is trying to put the scariest and most ominous slant on every bit of information, a chance to hear the words of actual real people instead of just the usual crowd of Emotional Vampires we usually get is refreshing.
And old dude who resents that the guy who is stationed at Fort Hood and who texts in an opinion, well get over yourself, it's a Brave New World after all where the old ways are being changed and remade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073208</id>
	<title>Opinion</title>
	<author>endianx</author>
	<datestamp>1258043640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find CNN (and other "news" stations) too often use the internet as a way to inject opinions that they don't want to state themselves because it would make them look bias.  For example, you read three message from intelligent people who are in favor of government health care, and one from some moron who is opposed.  The message is that the majority of people are in favor and the few who aren't are morons.  However, the anchors themselves didn't say anything.  They were just giving viewer comments.  It is a way to inject opinion in to the segments that are officially reserved for news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find CNN ( and other " news " stations ) too often use the internet as a way to inject opinions that they do n't want to state themselves because it would make them look bias .
For example , you read three message from intelligent people who are in favor of government health care , and one from some moron who is opposed .
The message is that the majority of people are in favor and the few who are n't are morons .
However , the anchors themselves did n't say anything .
They were just giving viewer comments .
It is a way to inject opinion in to the segments that are officially reserved for news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find CNN (and other "news" stations) too often use the internet as a way to inject opinions that they don't want to state themselves because it would make them look bias.
For example, you read three message from intelligent people who are in favor of government health care, and one from some moron who is opposed.
The message is that the majority of people are in favor and the few who aren't are morons.
However, the anchors themselves didn't say anything.
They were just giving viewer comments.
It is a way to inject opinion in to the segments that are officially reserved for news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073116</id>
	<title>Re:The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258043220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's Steve Dahl, and why do we care about his opinion?</p><p>~AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's Steve Dahl , and why do we care about his opinion ? ~ AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's Steve Dahl, and why do we care about his opinion?~AC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072394</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.</p></div><p>Hey, uncalled for, leave Jenny McCarthy out of this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.Hey , uncalled for , leave Jenny McCarthy out of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.Hey, uncalled for, leave Jenny McCarthy out of this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072416</id>
	<title>Gather the news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of the mainstream news sources have done that in 20 years, let alone CNN.</p><p>And, I mean, white women just aren't disappearing at the rate they used to.  Gotta cover the 24 hours with something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the mainstream news sources have done that in 20 years , let alone CNN.And , I mean , white women just are n't disappearing at the rate they used to .
Got ta cover the 24 hours with something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the mainstream news sources have done that in 20 years, let alone CNN.And, I mean, white women just aren't disappearing at the rate they used to.
Gotta cover the 24 hours with something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072814</id>
	<title>Re:Who's Steve Dahl</title>
	<author>IntricateEnigma</author>
	<datestamp>1258042080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May be true, but then Slashdot is the right place for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May be true , but then Slashdot is the right place for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May be true, but then Slashdot is the right place for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073738</id>
	<title>Was it ever any better?</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1258046040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often wonder if the news was ever any better.  I read recently in, I think, Time magazine an article about newspapers from the 1920s.  They would also back candidates and bad mouth the opponents, take political sides when reporting stories (and which stories to report), etc.  Nothing has changed there.  I don't imagine papers weren't "making news" back in the day either -- it's hardly a novel idea.  They need to sell papers and, just like Slashdot, there are slow news days.  So you go and interview a politician or police captain or waitress and you hope that something more interesting comes out of it.  If not, you have a nice "people" piece.  But there wasn't any news until you started asking.</p><p>With the Internet news, it's likely not any different, it's just faster.  24 hour news can't possibly generate enough facts to keep people going, so even the "famous" journalists like Anderson Cooper are left with filling in the gap with their faces and open mouths.  "Gosh, I remember when I was sick with the flu.  I coughed and coughed.  Really hurt.  Really hurt my ribs when I coughed like that.  With the flu.  So...uh...so you don't want it.  The flu.  Or to cough."</p><p>I read Time magazine (paper edition) because they usually have one or two long, decently-researched articles (thrown in between what are essentially headlines for the rest of the "news" and some opinion pieces).  Anything online is essentially under-researched nonsense -- I'd rather see constant updates, then, after a week, see a full write-up on the situation with sources, quotes, facts, etc.  Let me know what's going on, as you hear it, but give me the NEWS at some point instead of just a bunch of repeated text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often wonder if the news was ever any better .
I read recently in , I think , Time magazine an article about newspapers from the 1920s .
They would also back candidates and bad mouth the opponents , take political sides when reporting stories ( and which stories to report ) , etc .
Nothing has changed there .
I do n't imagine papers were n't " making news " back in the day either -- it 's hardly a novel idea .
They need to sell papers and , just like Slashdot , there are slow news days .
So you go and interview a politician or police captain or waitress and you hope that something more interesting comes out of it .
If not , you have a nice " people " piece .
But there was n't any news until you started asking.With the Internet news , it 's likely not any different , it 's just faster .
24 hour news ca n't possibly generate enough facts to keep people going , so even the " famous " journalists like Anderson Cooper are left with filling in the gap with their faces and open mouths .
" Gosh , I remember when I was sick with the flu .
I coughed and coughed .
Really hurt .
Really hurt my ribs when I coughed like that .
With the flu .
So...uh...so you do n't want it .
The flu .
Or to cough .
" I read Time magazine ( paper edition ) because they usually have one or two long , decently-researched articles ( thrown in between what are essentially headlines for the rest of the " news " and some opinion pieces ) .
Anything online is essentially under-researched nonsense -- I 'd rather see constant updates , then , after a week , see a full write-up on the situation with sources , quotes , facts , etc .
Let me know what 's going on , as you hear it , but give me the NEWS at some point instead of just a bunch of repeated text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often wonder if the news was ever any better.
I read recently in, I think, Time magazine an article about newspapers from the 1920s.
They would also back candidates and bad mouth the opponents, take political sides when reporting stories (and which stories to report), etc.
Nothing has changed there.
I don't imagine papers weren't "making news" back in the day either -- it's hardly a novel idea.
They need to sell papers and, just like Slashdot, there are slow news days.
So you go and interview a politician or police captain or waitress and you hope that something more interesting comes out of it.
If not, you have a nice "people" piece.
But there wasn't any news until you started asking.With the Internet news, it's likely not any different, it's just faster.
24 hour news can't possibly generate enough facts to keep people going, so even the "famous" journalists like Anderson Cooper are left with filling in the gap with their faces and open mouths.
"Gosh, I remember when I was sick with the flu.
I coughed and coughed.
Really hurt.
Really hurt my ribs when I coughed like that.
With the flu.
So...uh...so you don't want it.
The flu.
Or to cough.
"I read Time magazine (paper edition) because they usually have one or two long, decently-researched articles (thrown in between what are essentially headlines for the rest of the "news" and some opinion pieces).
Anything online is essentially under-researched nonsense -- I'd rather see constant updates, then, after a week, see a full write-up on the situation with sources, quotes, facts, etc.
Let me know what's going on, as you hear it, but give me the NEWS at some point instead of just a bunch of repeated text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074768</id>
	<title>Techcrunch just had a good article on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They take a similarly pessimistic viewpoint of twitter-happy 'citizen journalists' http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/07/nsfw-after-fort-hood-another-example-of-how-citizen-journalists-cant-handle-the-truth/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They take a similarly pessimistic viewpoint of twitter-happy 'citizen journalists ' http : //www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/07/nsfw-after-fort-hood-another-example-of-how-citizen-journalists-cant-handle-the-truth/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They take a similarly pessimistic viewpoint of twitter-happy 'citizen journalists' http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/07/nsfw-after-fort-hood-another-example-of-how-citizen-journalists-cant-handle-the-truth/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072800</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258042080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, those mommies are almost as bad as their 25 year old sons living in the basement.</p><p>obspam: vote ron paul!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , those mommies are almost as bad as their 25 year old sons living in the basement.obspam : vote ron paul !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, those mommies are almost as bad as their 25 year old sons living in the basement.obspam: vote ron paul!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072472</id>
	<title>It says NEWS in the title</title>
	<author>mattwrock</author>
	<datestamp>1258040580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ironing... er  irony aside, The news should be just that.... news. If you want to have a 30 minute opinion show that uses twitter, I don't have a problem with that. The problem is that reporters are not trying to find out new information, just giving me any thing but the shallowest facts. Instead of expert analysis, they fill the airwaves from reactions from people who don't have any direct connection to the event at hand. Big events do touch more than the direct participants, but the news channel is not the forum (at least not 24 hours a day).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironing... er irony aside , The news should be just that.... news. If you want to have a 30 minute opinion show that uses twitter , I do n't have a problem with that .
The problem is that reporters are not trying to find out new information , just giving me any thing but the shallowest facts .
Instead of expert analysis , they fill the airwaves from reactions from people who do n't have any direct connection to the event at hand .
Big events do touch more than the direct participants , but the news channel is not the forum ( at least not 24 hours a day ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironing... er  irony aside, The news should be just that.... news. If you want to have a 30 minute opinion show that uses twitter, I don't have a problem with that.
The problem is that reporters are not trying to find out new information, just giving me any thing but the shallowest facts.
Instead of expert analysis, they fill the airwaves from reactions from people who don't have any direct connection to the event at hand.
Big events do touch more than the direct participants, but the news channel is not the forum (at least not 24 hours a day).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074586</id>
	<title>Re:Three words</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1258049340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't remember what the letters stand for?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't remember what the letters stand for ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't remember what the letters stand for?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072348</id>
	<title>IT'S NOT NEWS (ANYMORE), IT'S ENTERTAINMENT !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gone are the days of dry Toria Tolley, now it's the opinionated presenter of the teleprompter !!  It's all crap.  The twits are just the next step.  It won't be the last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gone are the days of dry Toria Tolley , now it 's the opinionated presenter of the teleprompter ! !
It 's all crap .
The twits are just the next step .
It wo n't be the last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gone are the days of dry Toria Tolley, now it's the opinionated presenter of the teleprompter !!
It's all crap.
The twits are just the next step.
It won't be the last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30091024</id>
	<title>What to do with the Cesspool of Public Opinion?</title>
	<author>SilenceDoGoodGauge</author>
	<datestamp>1258103040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though first attempt at expressing a point of view more often than not reeks in the cesspool of ignorance or inarticulance, how many solutions never reach fruition lacking the credentials within ones social environment?

Democratic communication requires a forum to cut through the divergence of thought.    Poor arguments should not clutter the public sphere. On the other hand an individual requires a forum to receive feedback needed to express a more articulate argument deserving higher visibility.

The technology can be developed for a convergent process providing solutions representing a wider point of view.

Though stinky in its current revision, the <a href="http://www.dogoodgauge.org/" title="dogoodgauge.org" rel="nofollow">Do Good Gauge</a> [dogoodgauge.org] is an attempt to describe a more democratic forum for developing intelligent arguments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though first attempt at expressing a point of view more often than not reeks in the cesspool of ignorance or inarticulance , how many solutions never reach fruition lacking the credentials within ones social environment ?
Democratic communication requires a forum to cut through the divergence of thought .
Poor arguments should not clutter the public sphere .
On the other hand an individual requires a forum to receive feedback needed to express a more articulate argument deserving higher visibility .
The technology can be developed for a convergent process providing solutions representing a wider point of view .
Though stinky in its current revision , the Do Good Gauge [ dogoodgauge.org ] is an attempt to describe a more democratic forum for developing intelligent arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though first attempt at expressing a point of view more often than not reeks in the cesspool of ignorance or inarticulance, how many solutions never reach fruition lacking the credentials within ones social environment?
Democratic communication requires a forum to cut through the divergence of thought.
Poor arguments should not clutter the public sphere.
On the other hand an individual requires a forum to receive feedback needed to express a more articulate argument deserving higher visibility.
The technology can be developed for a convergent process providing solutions representing a wider point of view.
Though stinky in its current revision, the Do Good Gauge [dogoodgauge.org] is an attempt to describe a more democratic forum for developing intelligent arguments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077672</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1258059000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously. There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.</i> </p><p>Yeah!  That's why I'll only watch Fox News!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News services have become such an opinion mill that it 's starting to make it hard to take them seriously .
There is a time and place for people to banter on but I do n't want it from a news outlet .
Yeah ! That 's why I 'll only watch Fox News !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously.
There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.
Yeah!  That's why I'll only watch Fox News!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073476</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1258044660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For Op-Ed News, I prefer Howard Stern, and the "Daily Show".  I'd like to say Robert Cobert, but his stinging analysis only causes me to realize that there are many people in decision making positions that have thoroughly embraced Mediocrity.  For reporting the news, I agree, the BBC still gets it.  As for noise generated by beautiful women that read a Teleprompter, nice to watch, but they're a White Noise generator when trying to think while listening.  It's amazing how ignored the "Butterfly Effect" is by people.  I still agree with Howard Stern, "News is NOT two or more reporters talking to each other, it's a reporter interviewing a person who has done something."</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Op-Ed News , I prefer Howard Stern , and the " Daily Show " .
I 'd like to say Robert Cobert , but his stinging analysis only causes me to realize that there are many people in decision making positions that have thoroughly embraced Mediocrity .
For reporting the news , I agree , the BBC still gets it .
As for noise generated by beautiful women that read a Teleprompter , nice to watch , but they 're a White Noise generator when trying to think while listening .
It 's amazing how ignored the " Butterfly Effect " is by people .
I still agree with Howard Stern , " News is NOT two or more reporters talking to each other , it 's a reporter interviewing a person who has done something .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Op-Ed News, I prefer Howard Stern, and the "Daily Show".
I'd like to say Robert Cobert, but his stinging analysis only causes me to realize that there are many people in decision making positions that have thoroughly embraced Mediocrity.
For reporting the news, I agree, the BBC still gets it.
As for noise generated by beautiful women that read a Teleprompter, nice to watch, but they're a White Noise generator when trying to think while listening.
It's amazing how ignored the "Butterfly Effect" is by people.
I still agree with Howard Stern, "News is NOT two or more reporters talking to each other, it's a reporter interviewing a person who has done something.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077840</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258059480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously. There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.</i></p><p>"Starting to?"</p><p>I hate to break this to you, but the news has always been shit. The only reason people are finally realizing it now is that they can easily fact-check them with the Internet and all these new-fangled computer things.</p><p>I'm going to paraphrase a quote I can't remember the origin of:<br>"How many times have you read a newspaper article about your field, and noticed how many inaccuracies and out-of-date information were in it? Now think: is there any reason to believe their coverage of other fields is better than yours?"</p><p>If you read the book It's Not News, It's Fark (based on the Fark website, and written by its founder), it makes a very compelling case that not only is news coverage now awful, it's gotten *worse* since the foundation of 24-hour news networks. It gives rules for predicting how long a particular news cycle will last. Points out the craziness that, of all the missing people reported each year, the only ones who get mass media coverage are attractive white women, etc. Highly recommended.</p><p>The only thing the media is good at covering is the media, since that's the only topic they're actually experts in!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>News services have become such an opinion mill that it 's starting to make it hard to take them seriously .
There is a time and place for people to banter on but I do n't want it from a news outlet .
" Starting to ?
" I hate to break this to you , but the news has always been shit .
The only reason people are finally realizing it now is that they can easily fact-check them with the Internet and all these new-fangled computer things.I 'm going to paraphrase a quote I ca n't remember the origin of : " How many times have you read a newspaper article about your field , and noticed how many inaccuracies and out-of-date information were in it ?
Now think : is there any reason to believe their coverage of other fields is better than yours ?
" If you read the book It 's Not News , It 's Fark ( based on the Fark website , and written by its founder ) , it makes a very compelling case that not only is news coverage now awful , it 's gotten * worse * since the foundation of 24-hour news networks .
It gives rules for predicting how long a particular news cycle will last .
Points out the craziness that , of all the missing people reported each year , the only ones who get mass media coverage are attractive white women , etc .
Highly recommended.The only thing the media is good at covering is the media , since that 's the only topic they 're actually experts in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously.
There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.
"Starting to?
"I hate to break this to you, but the news has always been shit.
The only reason people are finally realizing it now is that they can easily fact-check them with the Internet and all these new-fangled computer things.I'm going to paraphrase a quote I can't remember the origin of:"How many times have you read a newspaper article about your field, and noticed how many inaccuracies and out-of-date information were in it?
Now think: is there any reason to believe their coverage of other fields is better than yours?
"If you read the book It's Not News, It's Fark (based on the Fark website, and written by its founder), it makes a very compelling case that not only is news coverage now awful, it's gotten *worse* since the foundation of 24-hour news networks.
It gives rules for predicting how long a particular news cycle will last.
Points out the craziness that, of all the missing people reported each year, the only ones who get mass media coverage are attractive white women, etc.
Highly recommended.The only thing the media is good at covering is the media, since that's the only topic they're actually experts in!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074270</id>
	<title>Know-it-alls &amp; Bone-heads</title>
	<author>uarch</author>
	<datestamp>1258048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes the know-it-alls and bone-heads that work in the news any better than know-it-alls and bone-heads who don't?</p><p>Most media people you see day-to-day have the mistaken impression that they actually know WTF they're talking about.  Unfortunately, they don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes the know-it-alls and bone-heads that work in the news any better than know-it-alls and bone-heads who do n't ? Most media people you see day-to-day have the mistaken impression that they actually know WTF they 're talking about .
Unfortunately , they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes the know-it-alls and bone-heads that work in the news any better than know-it-alls and bone-heads who don't?Most media people you see day-to-day have the mistaken impression that they actually know WTF they're talking about.
Unfortunately, they don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073290</id>
	<title>Editorial Opinion is Dead</title>
	<author>cybaz</author>
	<datestamp>1258043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there will always be a need for hard news, however editorial style opinion is dead. It used to be that in order to get to the limited number of news outlets, you had to have fairly impressive credentials and be an expert in what you would be discussing. However there are  are so many outlets for news now and so many people with inflated credentials it is difficult to determine who is providing analysis and who is providing taglines for their political agenda. Not to mention you have people like Ann Coulter who milk the system by saying outrageous things to grab headlines because she understands that the major networks love to report on controversy, and she only has to sell books to a small percentage of the audience to make money, anyway. I was disappointed recently when Newsweek redesigned their magazine and added \_more\_ commentary. I can get that for free, what I'm looking for in a news magazine in in-depth coverage of major events, that I can't get from skimming the CNN headlines or from Redstate or Daily Kos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there will always be a need for hard news , however editorial style opinion is dead .
It used to be that in order to get to the limited number of news outlets , you had to have fairly impressive credentials and be an expert in what you would be discussing .
However there are are so many outlets for news now and so many people with inflated credentials it is difficult to determine who is providing analysis and who is providing taglines for their political agenda .
Not to mention you have people like Ann Coulter who milk the system by saying outrageous things to grab headlines because she understands that the major networks love to report on controversy , and she only has to sell books to a small percentage of the audience to make money , anyway .
I was disappointed recently when Newsweek redesigned their magazine and added \ _more \ _ commentary .
I can get that for free , what I 'm looking for in a news magazine in in-depth coverage of major events , that I ca n't get from skimming the CNN headlines or from Redstate or Daily Kos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there will always be a need for hard news, however editorial style opinion is dead.
It used to be that in order to get to the limited number of news outlets, you had to have fairly impressive credentials and be an expert in what you would be discussing.
However there are  are so many outlets for news now and so many people with inflated credentials it is difficult to determine who is providing analysis and who is providing taglines for their political agenda.
Not to mention you have people like Ann Coulter who milk the system by saying outrageous things to grab headlines because she understands that the major networks love to report on controversy, and she only has to sell books to a small percentage of the audience to make money, anyway.
I was disappointed recently when Newsweek redesigned their magazine and added \_more\_ commentary.
I can get that for free, what I'm looking for in a news magazine in in-depth coverage of major events, that I can't get from skimming the CNN headlines or from Redstate or Daily Kos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072764</id>
	<title>There is your problem !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258041960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If <b>I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent</b>, fact-checked news and opinions from professional
<br> <br>You are probably new at that tv watching business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professional You are probably new at that tv watching business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professional
 You are probably new at that tv watching business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072534</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1258040940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Concur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Concur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077206</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1258057320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology (usually) and has a moderation system.</p></div><p>And full-fledged threading! I don't know how a group of people can have a useful online conversation without it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology ( usually ) and has a moderation system.And full-fledged threading !
I do n't know how a group of people can have a useful online conversation without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology (usually) and has a moderation system.And full-fledged threading!
I don't know how a group of people can have a useful online conversation without it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074070</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tv-be-gone also works well in forced TV watching sitatuations like that.</p><p>A nifty little device that turns off all TVs!</p><p>http://www.ladyada.net/make/tvbgone/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tv-be-gone also works well in forced TV watching sitatuations like that.A nifty little device that turns off all TVs ! http : //www.ladyada.net/make/tvbgone/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tv-be-gone also works well in forced TV watching sitatuations like that.A nifty little device that turns off all TVs!http://www.ladyada.net/make/tvbgone/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072788</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Thansal</author>
	<datestamp>1258042020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of random:<br>I read at 0 because I have found that this gives me the best overview.  Things seem to only end up at -1 if they really deserve it (copy paste stuff), however things will sit at 0 even though they are reasonable comments, or at least as reasonable as some of the +5, insightful stuff.  So I don't think that the slashdot system is bad, just that you need to read at 0 to get the best use out of it, after all, every so often AC says something worth reading, which is why we are supposed to focus on modding things up instead of down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of random : I read at 0 because I have found that this gives me the best overview .
Things seem to only end up at -1 if they really deserve it ( copy paste stuff ) , however things will sit at 0 even though they are reasonable comments , or at least as reasonable as some of the + 5 , insightful stuff .
So I do n't think that the slashdot system is bad , just that you need to read at 0 to get the best use out of it , after all , every so often AC says something worth reading , which is why we are supposed to focus on modding things up instead of down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of random:I read at 0 because I have found that this gives me the best overview.
Things seem to only end up at -1 if they really deserve it (copy paste stuff), however things will sit at 0 even though they are reasonable comments, or at least as reasonable as some of the +5, insightful stuff.
So I don't think that the slashdot system is bad, just that you need to read at 0 to get the best use out of it, after all, every so often AC says something worth reading, which is why we are supposed to focus on modding things up instead of down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072866</id>
	<title>Why they started doing it...</title>
	<author>Churla</author>
	<datestamp>1258042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think around the time CNN saw Fox staking out the conservative-centric news angles, and MSNBC staking out the liberal-centric news angles they knew they were somewhat screwed.  In at attempt to differentiate themselves they embraced the "let the people own it" mantra and started up all the tweeting crap and the iReporter stuff.</p><p>They're trying to find a niche, and not doing a good job of it if you go by the ratings.  Unfortunately they have been the closest left to a "neutral" cable news channel.  If they go under it will be a somewhat sad day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think around the time CNN saw Fox staking out the conservative-centric news angles , and MSNBC staking out the liberal-centric news angles they knew they were somewhat screwed .
In at attempt to differentiate themselves they embraced the " let the people own it " mantra and started up all the tweeting crap and the iReporter stuff.They 're trying to find a niche , and not doing a good job of it if you go by the ratings .
Unfortunately they have been the closest left to a " neutral " cable news channel .
If they go under it will be a somewhat sad day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think around the time CNN saw Fox staking out the conservative-centric news angles, and MSNBC staking out the liberal-centric news angles they knew they were somewhat screwed.
In at attempt to differentiate themselves they embraced the "let the people own it" mantra and started up all the tweeting crap and the iReporter stuff.They're trying to find a niche, and not doing a good job of it if you go by the ratings.
Unfortunately they have been the closest left to a "neutral" cable news channel.
If they go under it will be a somewhat sad day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077022</id>
	<title>Its about Content</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1258056660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern news agencies are strapped to find unique 24/7 content so they air this crap to fill up space between real events. its just the new version of showing the same damn Iraq vase being looted on a 24 hour loop.</p><p>The news isn't news any more. its 100\% biased opinionated crap with economic and political motives. By acting like the tweets are valid content, the media will be able to say , "See - we want a completely unqualified yahoo in office. This is progress."</p><p>Informative and unilateral news in print, television, and radio is dead. To get that content, Google-it form the source. VIVA Idiocracy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern news agencies are strapped to find unique 24/7 content so they air this crap to fill up space between real events .
its just the new version of showing the same damn Iraq vase being looted on a 24 hour loop.The news is n't news any more .
its 100 \ % biased opinionated crap with economic and political motives .
By acting like the tweets are valid content , the media will be able to say , " See - we want a completely unqualified yahoo in office .
This is progress .
" Informative and unilateral news in print , television , and radio is dead .
To get that content , Google-it form the source .
VIVA Idiocracy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern news agencies are strapped to find unique 24/7 content so they air this crap to fill up space between real events.
its just the new version of showing the same damn Iraq vase being looted on a 24 hour loop.The news isn't news any more.
its 100\% biased opinionated crap with economic and political motives.
By acting like the tweets are valid content, the media will be able to say , "See - we want a completely unqualified yahoo in office.
This is progress.
"Informative and unilateral news in print, television, and radio is dead.
To get that content, Google-it form the source.
VIVA Idiocracy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075714</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1258052340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering how many boneheads CNN has put in front of the camera (SEEya, Lou Dobbs), why is Dahl whinging about the Twitteratti?</p><p>I can understand his annoyance: I too wish TV came with a plugin like NoScript that would disable the crawl on the news channels. But that's why I use the web. It's far from perfect, but I can do at least some filtering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how many boneheads CNN has put in front of the camera ( SEEya , Lou Dobbs ) , why is Dahl whinging about the Twitteratti ? I can understand his annoyance : I too wish TV came with a plugin like NoScript that would disable the crawl on the news channels .
But that 's why I use the web .
It 's far from perfect , but I can do at least some filtering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how many boneheads CNN has put in front of the camera (SEEya, Lou Dobbs), why is Dahl whinging about the Twitteratti?I can understand his annoyance: I too wish TV came with a plugin like NoScript that would disable the crawl on the news channels.
But that's why I use the web.
It's far from perfect, but I can do at least some filtering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408</id>
	<title>Irony or hypocracy?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it amusing that there's an opinion piece that's against opinion pieces. What's Dahl's claim to lipping off "you aren't allowed to lip off?"</p><p>This was a gem (emphasis mine): "I was held accountable by management, listeners and, <b>most important, advertisers.</b>"</p><p>That's the ugly of a Dahl editorial and the beauty of a slashdot comment -- you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.</p><p>"When did public opinion merit the same amount of airtime as the actual story?"</p><p>When we got the internet. It used to be that only the rich could use the freedom of the press, because you had to actually own a press to have freedom of it. Now we, the people, have freedom of the press, too. The rich and the corporatti don't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it amusing that there 's an opinion piece that 's against opinion pieces .
What 's Dahl 's claim to lipping off " you are n't allowed to lip off ?
" This was a gem ( emphasis mine ) : " I was held accountable by management , listeners and , most important , advertisers .
" That 's the ugly of a Dahl editorial and the beauty of a slashdot comment -- you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo .
" When did public opinion merit the same amount of airtime as the actual story ?
" When we got the internet .
It used to be that only the rich could use the freedom of the press , because you had to actually own a press to have freedom of it .
Now we , the people , have freedom of the press , too .
The rich and the corporatti do n't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it amusing that there's an opinion piece that's against opinion pieces.
What's Dahl's claim to lipping off "you aren't allowed to lip off?
"This was a gem (emphasis mine): "I was held accountable by management, listeners and, most important, advertisers.
"That's the ugly of a Dahl editorial and the beauty of a slashdot comment -- you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.
"When did public opinion merit the same amount of airtime as the actual story?
"When we got the internet.
It used to be that only the rich could use the freedom of the press, because you had to actually own a press to have freedom of it.
Now we, the people, have freedom of the press, too.
The rich and the corporatti don't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073002</id>
	<title>I'm idontgno</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1258042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and my sig approves of this message.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and my sig approves of this message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and my sig approves of this message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072440</id>
	<title>CNN STOP IT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree.  When they first started reading net comments it was OK, but they've taken it too far.  Every once in a while if there is a really insightful comments it's fine, but it&rsquo;s starting to seem like they're crowd sourcing journalism.  If they're not just reading something off the internet then their fiddling with their latest data visualization tool.  They seem to spend more time mucking about with new technology than they do reporting.  Anybody else that hologram they used during the campaign coverage?  There is something very wrong with special effects on the news!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
When they first started reading net comments it was OK , but they 've taken it too far .
Every once in a while if there is a really insightful comments it 's fine , but it    s starting to seem like they 're crowd sourcing journalism .
If they 're not just reading something off the internet then their fiddling with their latest data visualization tool .
They seem to spend more time mucking about with new technology than they do reporting .
Anybody else that hologram they used during the campaign coverage ?
There is something very wrong with special effects on the news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
When they first started reading net comments it was OK, but they've taken it too far.
Every once in a while if there is a really insightful comments it's fine, but it’s starting to seem like they're crowd sourcing journalism.
If they're not just reading something off the internet then their fiddling with their latest data visualization tool.
They seem to spend more time mucking about with new technology than they do reporting.
Anybody else that hologram they used during the campaign coverage?
There is something very wrong with special effects on the news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073082</id>
	<title>Re:Who's Steve Dahl</title>
	<author>Lil'wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1258043100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close.  Steve Dahl is a former #1 rated daytime talk radio host turned weekly columnist for the Chicago Tribune  when his the balance of his contract was bought out and a non-compete in place during a radio format change.  His contribution to history was the 1979 riot at Cominsky Park during a double header intermission.  The riot occurred during the <b>Disco Demolition</b> entertainment event when a large pile of records (discounted admission if you brought a record) was exploded in center field.</p><p>I think Steve Dahl would agree that your statement is only 2/3rds correct.</p><p>a better statement</p><p><b>A professional idiot with a Mac and a DSL</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close .
Steve Dahl is a former # 1 rated daytime talk radio host turned weekly columnist for the Chicago Tribune when his the balance of his contract was bought out and a non-compete in place during a radio format change .
His contribution to history was the 1979 riot at Cominsky Park during a double header intermission .
The riot occurred during the Disco Demolition entertainment event when a large pile of records ( discounted admission if you brought a record ) was exploded in center field.I think Steve Dahl would agree that your statement is only 2/3rds correct.a better statementA professional idiot with a Mac and a DSL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close.
Steve Dahl is a former #1 rated daytime talk radio host turned weekly columnist for the Chicago Tribune  when his the balance of his contract was bought out and a non-compete in place during a radio format change.
His contribution to history was the 1979 riot at Cominsky Park during a double header intermission.
The riot occurred during the Disco Demolition entertainment event when a large pile of records (discounted admission if you brought a record) was exploded in center field.I think Steve Dahl would agree that your statement is only 2/3rds correct.a better statementA professional idiot with a Mac and a DSL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072546</id>
	<title>seconded</title>
	<author>theIsovist</author>
	<datestamp>1258041000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this will be marked redundant but I completely agree.  I was under the (possibly naive) assumption that the job of the news was to inform the public, not to be informed by it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this will be marked redundant but I completely agree .
I was under the ( possibly naive ) assumption that the job of the news was to inform the public , not to be informed by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this will be marked redundant but I completely agree.
I was under the (possibly naive) assumption that the job of the news was to inform the public, not to be informed by it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074870</id>
	<title>Re:More concerned with their validation of Fox New</title>
	<author>freedomseven</author>
	<datestamp>1258050060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you jump on the bandwagon of libs trying to marginalize Fox News, you have to acknowledge that ALL of the media are guilty of ALL of the practices that you are accusing Fox of.</p><p>Case in point. I was in Tallahassee in 2000 at the controversial election certification. If you watched the event on TV, you would think that the Capital was filled with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. I watched as a CNN producer asked the crowd if the were for Gore or Bush. There were maybe a hundred Gore supporters but there were easily a thousand Bush supporters. I was surprised to hear the commentator make a comment that the crowd seemed evenly divided.</p><p>I later saw the segment air on CNN and had I not been their myself I would have thought that the crowd was evenly divided.</p><p>So the reality is that the media creates the images that they need to support the story that they are telling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you jump on the bandwagon of libs trying to marginalize Fox News , you have to acknowledge that ALL of the media are guilty of ALL of the practices that you are accusing Fox of.Case in point .
I was in Tallahassee in 2000 at the controversial election certification .
If you watched the event on TV , you would think that the Capital was filled with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats .
I watched as a CNN producer asked the crowd if the were for Gore or Bush .
There were maybe a hundred Gore supporters but there were easily a thousand Bush supporters .
I was surprised to hear the commentator make a comment that the crowd seemed evenly divided.I later saw the segment air on CNN and had I not been their myself I would have thought that the crowd was evenly divided.So the reality is that the media creates the images that they need to support the story that they are telling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you jump on the bandwagon of libs trying to marginalize Fox News, you have to acknowledge that ALL of the media are guilty of ALL of the practices that you are accusing Fox of.Case in point.
I was in Tallahassee in 2000 at the controversial election certification.
If you watched the event on TV, you would think that the Capital was filled with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
I watched as a CNN producer asked the crowd if the were for Gore or Bush.
There were maybe a hundred Gore supporters but there were easily a thousand Bush supporters.
I was surprised to hear the commentator make a comment that the crowd seemed evenly divided.I later saw the segment air on CNN and had I not been their myself I would have thought that the crowd was evenly divided.So the reality is that the media creates the images that they need to support the story that they are telling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081422</id>
	<title>Oh please</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1258030200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CNN (MSNBC, et al) already were boneheads with computers, cable modems and a half-baked opinions long before the discovered twits that tweet and audience participation in their ambulance chasing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN ( MSNBC , et al ) already were boneheads with computers , cable modems and a half-baked opinions long before the discovered twits that tweet and audience participation in their ambulance chasing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN (MSNBC, et al) already were boneheads with computers, cable modems and a half-baked opinions long before the discovered twits that tweet and audience participation in their ambulance chasing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072962</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1258042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look at FARK. I can't read the artcle comments there any more because they're so amazingly depressing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at FARK .
I ca n't read the artcle comments there any more because they 're so amazingly depressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at FARK.
I can't read the artcle comments there any more because they're so amazingly depressing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073366</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258044240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So true. Lou Dobbs was run off of CNN today because his political views didn't follow the CNN script.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So true .
Lou Dobbs was run off of CNN today because his political views did n't follow the CNN script .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true.
Lou Dobbs was run off of CNN today because his political views didn't follow the CNN script.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074640</id>
	<title>Who again, is watching CNN?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1258049460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CNN routinely gets trashed by The Daily Show and John Stewart; their DECADES of siding with the democrats are very, very, very well known. Much like ABC is known for putting C4 into pickup trucks to suggest they'd blow up. These are hacks, not journalists!</p><p>I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest. NOT ONE of these lame media outlets even reported that it happened, CNN was no different.  People are raging at the takeover of liberty and these news organizations have their noses planted deeply up the DNC's ass.</p><p>The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News; funny how 'the fringe' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other, lesser outlets. Can't you guys allow yourselves to see what's going on, here?</p><p>You guys learned to code!  You learned to wire! You learned to internet, Python, find larger prime numbers and turn DNA into music....but you can't see the huge push to stamp out freedom?  Wake up, guys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN routinely gets trashed by The Daily Show and John Stewart ; their DECADES of siding with the democrats are very , very , very well known .
Much like ABC is known for putting C4 into pickup trucks to suggest they 'd blow up .
These are hacks , not journalists ! I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest .
NOT ONE of these lame media outlets even reported that it happened , CNN was no different .
People are raging at the takeover of liberty and these news organizations have their noses planted deeply up the DNC 's ass.The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News ; funny how 'the fringe ' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other , lesser outlets .
Ca n't you guys allow yourselves to see what 's going on , here ? You guys learned to code !
You learned to wire !
You learned to internet , Python , find larger prime numbers and turn DNA into music....but you ca n't see the huge push to stamp out freedom ?
Wake up , guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN routinely gets trashed by The Daily Show and John Stewart; their DECADES of siding with the democrats are very, very, very well known.
Much like ABC is known for putting C4 into pickup trucks to suggest they'd blow up.
These are hacks, not journalists!I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest.
NOT ONE of these lame media outlets even reported that it happened, CNN was no different.
People are raging at the takeover of liberty and these news organizations have their noses planted deeply up the DNC's ass.The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News; funny how 'the fringe' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other, lesser outlets.
Can't you guys allow yourselves to see what's going on, here?You guys learned to code!
You learned to wire!
You learned to internet, Python, find larger prime numbers and turn DNA into music....but you can't see the huge push to stamp out freedom?
Wake up, guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073802</id>
	<title>Re:Who's Steve Dahl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258046340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Close</i></p><p>An idiot with a computer and a DSL connection?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CloseAn idiot with a computer and a DSL connection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CloseAn idiot with a computer and a DSL connection?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073112</id>
	<title>Twitter is not the problem</title>
	<author>tmk</author>
	<datestamp>1258043220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem: CNN has no real interest in facts anymore. interview the extremists on every side and leave it there.<br> <br>

Jon Steward has something to say <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there" title="thedailyshow.com">about the problem</a> [thedailyshow.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem : CNN has no real interest in facts anymore .
interview the extremists on every side and leave it there .
Jon Steward has something to say about the problem [ thedailyshow.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem: CNN has no real interest in facts anymore.
interview the extremists on every side and leave it there.
Jon Steward has something to say about the problem [thedailyshow.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30082526</id>
	<title>Most of us know nothing.</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258038000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our opinions are of very little value, when it comes to most subjects we're somewhere between uninformed and stupid. I watch the news because I want them to ask someone who actually has expertise on the subject, people who have knowledge about these subjects. I know an awful about a very few things, and damn little about almost every thing else. I can come to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and find out what other geeks think about any and everything, but for the 14 minutes I'm watching TV news at one time I too would like them to trot out an actual expert, not the tweeted opinion of some moron from Delaware. (I have nothing against morons from Delaware. In fact, as I noted earlier when it comes to the vast majority of subjects I'm a moron, as are most of us.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our opinions are of very little value , when it comes to most subjects we 're somewhere between uninformed and stupid .
I watch the news because I want them to ask someone who actually has expertise on the subject , people who have knowledge about these subjects .
I know an awful about a very few things , and damn little about almost every thing else .
I can come to / .
and find out what other geeks think about any and everything , but for the 14 minutes I 'm watching TV news at one time I too would like them to trot out an actual expert , not the tweeted opinion of some moron from Delaware .
( I have nothing against morons from Delaware .
In fact , as I noted earlier when it comes to the vast majority of subjects I 'm a moron , as are most of us .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our opinions are of very little value, when it comes to most subjects we're somewhere between uninformed and stupid.
I watch the news because I want them to ask someone who actually has expertise on the subject, people who have knowledge about these subjects.
I know an awful about a very few things, and damn little about almost every thing else.
I can come to /.
and find out what other geeks think about any and everything, but for the 14 minutes I'm watching TV news at one time I too would like them to trot out an actual expert, not the tweeted opinion of some moron from Delaware.
(I have nothing against morons from Delaware.
In fact, as I noted earlier when it comes to the vast majority of subjects I'm a moron, as are most of us.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073884</id>
	<title>More concerned with their validation of Fox News</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1258046700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more concerned with them taking fox news seriously and giving them validation despite their neck-deep role engineering the 9/12 teabagger protests and <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091111/ts\_ynews/ynews\_ts977" title="yahoo.com">deliberate manipulation</a> [yahoo.com] of footage to mislead the public into thinking there are more americans opposed to democratic agendas than there actually are.</p><p>I don't appreciate them giving validation to a network which manufactures the news stories they cover, either through acting as a political action committe and then covering their own protest rallies, through lies of omission and quotes out of context, or through lies of manipulation.</p><p>Slanted analysis is one thing, but you never see the leftist MSNBC outright fabricating propaganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more concerned with them taking fox news seriously and giving them validation despite their neck-deep role engineering the 9/12 teabagger protests and deliberate manipulation [ yahoo.com ] of footage to mislead the public into thinking there are more americans opposed to democratic agendas than there actually are.I do n't appreciate them giving validation to a network which manufactures the news stories they cover , either through acting as a political action committe and then covering their own protest rallies , through lies of omission and quotes out of context , or through lies of manipulation.Slanted analysis is one thing , but you never see the leftist MSNBC outright fabricating propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more concerned with them taking fox news seriously and giving them validation despite their neck-deep role engineering the 9/12 teabagger protests and deliberate manipulation [yahoo.com] of footage to mislead the public into thinking there are more americans opposed to democratic agendas than there actually are.I don't appreciate them giving validation to a network which manufactures the news stories they cover, either through acting as a political action committe and then covering their own protest rallies, through lies of omission and quotes out of context, or through lies of manipulation.Slanted analysis is one thing, but you never see the leftist MSNBC outright fabricating propaganda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30087706</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intelligent, fact-checked news hasn't been available for a very long time... It's all opinion. And I don't think a professional journalist's opinion is any different than any other opinion. They really are like as..... Everyone has one and I think I can make up my own if I can get actual, untainted facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intelligent , fact-checked news has n't been available for a very long time... It 's all opinion .
And I do n't think a professional journalist 's opinion is any different than any other opinion .
They really are like as..... Everyone has one and I think I can make up my own if I can get actual , untainted facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intelligent, fact-checked news hasn't been available for a very long time... It's all opinion.
And I don't think a professional journalist's opinion is any different than any other opinion.
They really are like as..... Everyone has one and I think I can make up my own if I can get actual, untainted facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072412</id>
	<title>I read the Tribune for the comics and obits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet I have  to wade through an entire section called the editorial pages that acts as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with or without a computer and a half-baked opinion.</p><p>And frankly, the news section is so status quo. I learn no less from the comics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet I have to wade through an entire section called the editorial pages that acts as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with or without a computer and a half-baked opinion.And frankly , the news section is so status quo .
I learn no less from the comics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet I have  to wade through an entire section called the editorial pages that acts as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with or without a computer and a half-baked opinion.And frankly, the news section is so status quo.
I learn no less from the comics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073296</id>
	<title>The Bad thing about the Internet</title>
	<author>quatin</author>
	<datestamp>1258043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People with opinions that should never be heard are now public. <br> <br>

Imagine if the world ends and the only thing left to represent life in this century was the server that held all of youtube's comments.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>People with opinions that should never be heard are now public .
Imagine if the world ends and the only thing left to represent life in this century was the server that held all of youtube 's comments.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People with opinions that should never be heard are now public.
Imagine if the world ends and the only thing left to represent life in this century was the server that held all of youtube's comments.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073576</id>
	<title>Re:Who's Steve Dahl</title>
	<author>bobschneider8</author>
	<datestamp>1258045140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's the guy who orgainized Disco Demolition Night at the old Comiskey Park in Chicago back in the late 1970s.

A fine qualification for media criticism, IMO</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's the guy who orgainized Disco Demolition Night at the old Comiskey Park in Chicago back in the late 1970s .
A fine qualification for media criticism , IMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's the guy who orgainized Disco Demolition Night at the old Comiskey Park in Chicago back in the late 1970s.
A fine qualification for media criticism, IMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077616</id>
	<title>"Step inside the box!"</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1258058820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what our local CBS calls it, and, yes, it's annoying as hell.  I'd rather have another bear up a tree story or some corporate PR piece vaguely disguised as "news" than know what some other TV watching fool thinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what our local CBS calls it , and , yes , it 's annoying as hell .
I 'd rather have another bear up a tree story or some corporate PR piece vaguely disguised as " news " than know what some other TV watching fool thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what our local CBS calls it, and, yes, it's annoying as hell.
I'd rather have another bear up a tree story or some corporate PR piece vaguely disguised as "news" than know what some other TV watching fool thinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081700</id>
	<title>Amusing Parody Here</title>
	<author>footnmouth</author>
	<datestamp>1258031820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC is at it here in Blighty as well, this sums it up for me <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E10Bp\_mPXXA" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">That Mitchell and Webb Look - BBC News</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is at it here in Blighty as well , this sums it up for me That Mitchell and Webb Look - BBC News [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is at it here in Blighty as well, this sums it up for me That Mitchell and Webb Look - BBC News [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072354</id>
	<title>As usual, Python has already been there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>any bonehead with...a half-baked opinion.</i></p><p>You Americans. You love to talk.<br>You love to say 'Let me tell ya something' and<br>'Here's what I think about that'.<br>Well, shut the fuck up.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Death in "The Meaning of Life"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>any bonehead with...a half-baked opinion.You Americans .
You love to talk.You love to say 'Let me tell ya something ' and'Here 's what I think about that'.Well , shut the fuck up .
              -Death in " The Meaning of Life "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any bonehead with...a half-baked opinion.You Americans.
You love to talk.You love to say 'Let me tell ya something' and'Here's what I think about that'.Well, shut the fuck up.
              -Death in "The Meaning of Life"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073300</id>
	<title>Companies are not people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just CNN.  Almost every company wants a Myspace page, twitter, facebook, blog, texting service, user accounts and registration, among other tech toys.  The problem is that these tools were clearly intended to empower individuals to connect with other individuals.  The companies using these things usually don't have any concerted reason to do so.</p><p>Corporations might be legal individuals, but they're not people, and they gain little to no benefit (perhaps even detriment) from attempting to employ socialisation.  If you look at corporations as sociopathic, narcissistic, and single-mindedly self-interested individuals, it's clear they see these things as just another manipulation mechanism.  They're not socialising; the conversation is unidirectional.  They don't absorb, process, and react on the information, they gather and retransmit with absolutely no transformation.  They're not talking WITH us, they're just talking AT us.</p><p>CNN doesn't do anything with the tweets.  It's as useful as going to a Starbucks and having the employees stare blankly at you and repeat to you, verbatim, something a previous customer said while standing in line.  "Welcome to Starbucks, Shelly said: I'll have a cafe mocha, damn I shouldn't have stopped in here, I'm gonna be late for work."</p><p>The people running companies need to realize that their company isn't one of our pals.  They can't talk to us in our social circles, they can't hang out with us at a pub, and they can't sit in on our D&amp;D sessions.  They're product and service providers, nothing more.  The fact that they desperately try to extend themselves into our social space borders on triggering the uncanny valley feeling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just CNN .
Almost every company wants a Myspace page , twitter , facebook , blog , texting service , user accounts and registration , among other tech toys .
The problem is that these tools were clearly intended to empower individuals to connect with other individuals .
The companies using these things usually do n't have any concerted reason to do so.Corporations might be legal individuals , but they 're not people , and they gain little to no benefit ( perhaps even detriment ) from attempting to employ socialisation .
If you look at corporations as sociopathic , narcissistic , and single-mindedly self-interested individuals , it 's clear they see these things as just another manipulation mechanism .
They 're not socialising ; the conversation is unidirectional .
They do n't absorb , process , and react on the information , they gather and retransmit with absolutely no transformation .
They 're not talking WITH us , they 're just talking AT us.CNN does n't do anything with the tweets .
It 's as useful as going to a Starbucks and having the employees stare blankly at you and repeat to you , verbatim , something a previous customer said while standing in line .
" Welcome to Starbucks , Shelly said : I 'll have a cafe mocha , damn I should n't have stopped in here , I 'm gon na be late for work .
" The people running companies need to realize that their company is n't one of our pals .
They ca n't talk to us in our social circles , they ca n't hang out with us at a pub , and they ca n't sit in on our D&amp;D sessions .
They 're product and service providers , nothing more .
The fact that they desperately try to extend themselves into our social space borders on triggering the uncanny valley feeling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just CNN.
Almost every company wants a Myspace page, twitter, facebook, blog, texting service, user accounts and registration, among other tech toys.
The problem is that these tools were clearly intended to empower individuals to connect with other individuals.
The companies using these things usually don't have any concerted reason to do so.Corporations might be legal individuals, but they're not people, and they gain little to no benefit (perhaps even detriment) from attempting to employ socialisation.
If you look at corporations as sociopathic, narcissistic, and single-mindedly self-interested individuals, it's clear they see these things as just another manipulation mechanism.
They're not socialising; the conversation is unidirectional.
They don't absorb, process, and react on the information, they gather and retransmit with absolutely no transformation.
They're not talking WITH us, they're just talking AT us.CNN doesn't do anything with the tweets.
It's as useful as going to a Starbucks and having the employees stare blankly at you and repeat to you, verbatim, something a previous customer said while standing in line.
"Welcome to Starbucks, Shelly said: I'll have a cafe mocha, damn I shouldn't have stopped in here, I'm gonna be late for work.
"The people running companies need to realize that their company isn't one of our pals.
They can't talk to us in our social circles, they can't hang out with us at a pub, and they can't sit in on our D&amp;D sessions.
They're product and service providers, nothing more.
The fact that they desperately try to extend themselves into our social space borders on triggering the uncanny valley feeling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076488</id>
	<title>bonehead opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258054800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah! That's Fox's job!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah !
That 's Fox 's job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!
That's Fox's job!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072446</id>
	<title>Re:The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, by my posting about YOUR posting on a guy posting about a guy posting about...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , by my posting about YOUR posting on a guy posting about a guy posting about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, by my posting about YOUR posting on a guy posting about a guy posting about...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072920</id>
	<title>Fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258042560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...any SLASHDOTTER with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...any SLASHDOTTER with a computer , a cable modem and a half-baked opinion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...any SLASHDOTTER with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075234</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>AdamHaun</author>
	<datestamp>1258050960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? I think Slashdot would be greatly improved by adding *more* downmodding as well as increasing the upmod cap. The problem I see is that the people who don't read the articles and have no idea what they're talking about drown out the few people with real expertise. Go to any science article and you'll see this -- "I'm not a physicist or anything, but [three paragraphs of uninformed speculation garbage]" gets heavily upmodded by other people who aren't physicists either. Then you have the issue that any article that can veer off into politics will, and political discussions are even worse about uninformed speculation. But the worst has to be when the summary has nothing to do with the article. You can immediately tell which third of the commenters read the article and which two thirds didn't.</p><p>I'd like to see the mod options revamped as follows, with the scale ranging from -1 to +10:</p><p>-1, Did not read the article<br>-1, Wrong (wipes out all political discussions)<br>-1, Unqualified to make this comment<br>-1, Causing trouble (why bother with the distinction between Troll and Flamebait?)<br>-1, Adds nothing to the discussion<br>-1, Overrated</p><p>+1, Provides expert information relevant to the article<br>+1, Provides informed analysis relevant to the article<br>+1, Asks an interesting question relevant to the article<br>[Maybe one more?]</p><p>Some of the options are similar to the current scheme, but mine are more specific. I left Funny out since it's so heavily abused, but it's easy to filter so you can add it back in if you want. Everything else can stay at the default score. The new scheme encourages what's good about Slashdot (highly technical people commenting on technical issues) and discourages what's bad about internet discussions (uninformed people inflating their egos and drowning everyone else out).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I think Slashdot would be greatly improved by adding * more * downmodding as well as increasing the upmod cap .
The problem I see is that the people who do n't read the articles and have no idea what they 're talking about drown out the few people with real expertise .
Go to any science article and you 'll see this -- " I 'm not a physicist or anything , but [ three paragraphs of uninformed speculation garbage ] " gets heavily upmodded by other people who are n't physicists either .
Then you have the issue that any article that can veer off into politics will , and political discussions are even worse about uninformed speculation .
But the worst has to be when the summary has nothing to do with the article .
You can immediately tell which third of the commenters read the article and which two thirds did n't.I 'd like to see the mod options revamped as follows , with the scale ranging from -1 to + 10 : -1 , Did not read the article-1 , Wrong ( wipes out all political discussions ) -1 , Unqualified to make this comment-1 , Causing trouble ( why bother with the distinction between Troll and Flamebait ?
) -1 , Adds nothing to the discussion-1 , Overrated + 1 , Provides expert information relevant to the article + 1 , Provides informed analysis relevant to the article + 1 , Asks an interesting question relevant to the article [ Maybe one more ?
] Some of the options are similar to the current scheme , but mine are more specific .
I left Funny out since it 's so heavily abused , but it 's easy to filter so you can add it back in if you want .
Everything else can stay at the default score .
The new scheme encourages what 's good about Slashdot ( highly technical people commenting on technical issues ) and discourages what 's bad about internet discussions ( uninformed people inflating their egos and drowning everyone else out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I think Slashdot would be greatly improved by adding *more* downmodding as well as increasing the upmod cap.
The problem I see is that the people who don't read the articles and have no idea what they're talking about drown out the few people with real expertise.
Go to any science article and you'll see this -- "I'm not a physicist or anything, but [three paragraphs of uninformed speculation garbage]" gets heavily upmodded by other people who aren't physicists either.
Then you have the issue that any article that can veer off into politics will, and political discussions are even worse about uninformed speculation.
But the worst has to be when the summary has nothing to do with the article.
You can immediately tell which third of the commenters read the article and which two thirds didn't.I'd like to see the mod options revamped as follows, with the scale ranging from -1 to +10:-1, Did not read the article-1, Wrong (wipes out all political discussions)-1, Unqualified to make this comment-1, Causing trouble (why bother with the distinction between Troll and Flamebait?
)-1, Adds nothing to the discussion-1, Overrated+1, Provides expert information relevant to the article+1, Provides informed analysis relevant to the article+1, Asks an interesting question relevant to the article[Maybe one more?
]Some of the options are similar to the current scheme, but mine are more specific.
I left Funny out since it's so heavily abused, but it's easy to filter so you can add it back in if you want.
Everything else can stay at the default score.
The new scheme encourages what's good about Slashdot (highly technical people commenting on technical issues) and discourages what's bad about internet discussions (uninformed people inflating their egos and drowning everyone else out).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072604</id>
	<title>@stinky isn't going away too quickly.</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1258041300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as @stinky and people like him bring eyeballs and money to their website.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as @ stinky and people like him bring eyeballs and money to their website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as @stinky and people like him bring eyeballs and money to their website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074294</id>
	<title>I agree with dahl but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it is bad to let people add comments.  What I think is bad is that the comments are not regulated by pertinent or entertaining value.  I am not certain but I believe this problem has already been solved on some other site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it is bad to let people add comments .
What I think is bad is that the comments are not regulated by pertinent or entertaining value .
I am not certain but I believe this problem has already been solved on some other site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it is bad to let people add comments.
What I think is bad is that the comments are not regulated by pertinent or entertaining value.
I am not certain but I believe this problem has already been solved on some other site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078514</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1258018920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.</p></div><p>Why don't we ask Dan Rather how that worked out?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionals , not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.Why do n't we ask Dan Rather how that worked out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.Why don't we ask Dan Rather how that worked out?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075692</id>
	<title>Re:The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>warmgun</author>
	<datestamp>1258052280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I catch your Simpson's reference!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I catch your Simpson 's reference !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I catch your Simpson's reference!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072202</id>
	<title>I've quit watching Headline News because of this</title>
	<author>ShaunC</author>
	<datestamp>1258039560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ted Turner is right, they need to put him back in charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ted Turner is right , they need to put him back in charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ted Turner is right, they need to put him back in charge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what I was thinking as I read the blurb.<br> <br>If I want solid information I head over to a site like PhysOrg. If I want to see what others are thinking I head to Slashdot.<br> <br>News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously. There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet. <br> <br>I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field. I know the public opinion on just about anything is 10 times worse. We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on. Do we really need another?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I was thinking as I read the blurb .
If I want solid information I head over to a site like PhysOrg .
If I want to see what others are thinking I head to Slashdot .
News services have become such an opinion mill that it 's starting to make it hard to take them seriously .
There is a time and place for people to banter on but I do n't want it from a news outlet .
I 've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field .
I know the public opinion on just about anything is 10 times worse .
We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on .
Do we really need another ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I was thinking as I read the blurb.
If I want solid information I head over to a site like PhysOrg.
If I want to see what others are thinking I head to Slashdot.
News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously.
There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.
I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field.
I know the public opinion on just about anything is 10 times worse.
We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on.
Do we really need another?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079516</id>
	<title>Re:Twitter is not the problem</title>
	<author>spectro</author>
	<datestamp>1258022460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That segment of "The Daily Show" can't be more right: Their news anchors are supposed to have degrees in journalism yet don't bother to challenge anything somebody they are interviewing clearly pulled up his ass.</p><p>They are lazy: they mention some news, then bring pundits for opinions but since they don't do any research on their own, they cannot challenge what the pundits say.</p><p>I stopped watching 24 Hr news networks for that reason: I want news, not opinions or speculation on what color of underwear the first lady is going to wear to the next presidential event.</p><p>If CNN is to survive, they need to reinvent themselves and that Daily Show segment is giving them a blueprint on what a good news network should do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That segment of " The Daily Show " ca n't be more right : Their news anchors are supposed to have degrees in journalism yet do n't bother to challenge anything somebody they are interviewing clearly pulled up his ass.They are lazy : they mention some news , then bring pundits for opinions but since they do n't do any research on their own , they can not challenge what the pundits say.I stopped watching 24 Hr news networks for that reason : I want news , not opinions or speculation on what color of underwear the first lady is going to wear to the next presidential event.If CNN is to survive , they need to reinvent themselves and that Daily Show segment is giving them a blueprint on what a good news network should do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That segment of "The Daily Show" can't be more right: Their news anchors are supposed to have degrees in journalism yet don't bother to challenge anything somebody they are interviewing clearly pulled up his ass.They are lazy: they mention some news, then bring pundits for opinions but since they don't do any research on their own, they cannot challenge what the pundits say.I stopped watching 24 Hr news networks for that reason: I want news, not opinions or speculation on what color of underwear the first lady is going to wear to the next presidential event.If CNN is to survive, they need to reinvent themselves and that Daily Show segment is giving them a blueprint on what a good news network should do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072226</id>
	<title>f*ck your voice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great thing about cnn is the HLN's "your voice" where they display a graphic of some kind of cellphone bars or audio bars or something in the shape of a hand flicking you off and the great thing about it is that its animated to make it look like its flicking you off over and over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great thing about cnn is the HLN 's " your voice " where they display a graphic of some kind of cellphone bars or audio bars or something in the shape of a hand flicking you off and the great thing about it is that its animated to make it look like its flicking you off over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great thing about cnn is the HLN's "your voice" where they display a graphic of some kind of cellphone bars or audio bars or something in the shape of a hand flicking you off and the great thing about it is that its animated to make it look like its flicking you off over and over again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074058</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>siouxgeonz</author>
	<datestamp>1258047480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
  Few weeks back the bottom trailers were scrolling that Obama had won the Nobel Prize, there were storms wreaking havoc somewhere, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but the "live breaking news" that couldn't be interrupted for these mundanities?  "Cops chasing truck in Texas."  No, CNN is not about news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Few weeks back the bottom trailers were scrolling that Obama had won the Nobel Prize , there were storms wreaking havoc somewhere , and ... but the " live breaking news " that could n't be interrupted for these mundanities ?
" Cops chasing truck in Texas .
" No , CNN is not about news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Few weeks back the bottom trailers were scrolling that Obama had won the Nobel Prize, there were storms wreaking havoc somewhere, and ... but the "live breaking news" that couldn't be interrupted for these mundanities?
"Cops chasing truck in Texas.
"  No, CNN is not about news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079750</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>dah192</author>
	<datestamp>1258023180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The media is in transition.  There was a big jump in this opinion gathering thing when the various organizations began to have web sites that they wanted to promote but where not sure how.  So, they direct you to their web site and feign interest in what you have to say and show advertisers their 'hit' count.  Unfortunately all of our news gets diluted with these weak, uninformed comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media is in transition .
There was a big jump in this opinion gathering thing when the various organizations began to have web sites that they wanted to promote but where not sure how .
So , they direct you to their web site and feign interest in what you have to say and show advertisers their 'hit ' count .
Unfortunately all of our news gets diluted with these weak , uninformed comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media is in transition.
There was a big jump in this opinion gathering thing when the various organizations began to have web sites that they wanted to promote but where not sure how.
So, they direct you to their web site and feign interest in what you have to say and show advertisers their 'hit' count.
Unfortunately all of our news gets diluted with these weak, uninformed comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075908</id>
	<title>Re:Irony or hypocracy?</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1258053000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The rich and the corporatti don't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit.</p></div><p>I have to completely disagree with your last point.</p><p>The rich and the corporations (your words) don't give a rat's ass that the unwashed masses go online and argue pointlessly without logic, grammar, basic literacy, or willingness to lose an argument. The internet has created a publicly viewable forum for people of all backgrounds to spout their close-minded worldviews. Unfortunately, people who would never espouse their racist, ignorant, or outright confrontational contrary to personal beliefs in a public setting (where their identity is known as a basis of their espousal) make up for their quietness in the real world by doing so online. The two or three insightful posts are hidden away in the crowd of stupidity, ignored because they don't agree with your personal worldview (as opposed to factual information, or what used to be on the news prior to ratings), and ultimately butchered and improperly diagnosed later as "a reaction to/from our viewers."</p><p>Public opinion doesn't merit airtime. For example, the fact that a statistically significant percentage of people believe that creationism should be taught in public schools, or that flu vaccines can give you aids, or having a reporter report that the news he just announced has touched many people in many ways (and here's 20 minutes of random people reacting to it) is not deserving of airtime. Of course, when you have 24 hours news, and only 30 minutes of news, the majority of it will be meaningless crap. When you let people comment on meaningless crap, you really shouldn't expect a whole lot of insight.</p><p>If people had anything of use to say in online forums, they wouldn't be arguing about it with strangers on the internet. They would be finding a way to monetize their ideas. Not through the press of a blog or newstation or political avenue, but through a business or investment method.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rich and the corporatti do n't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit.I have to completely disagree with your last point.The rich and the corporations ( your words ) do n't give a rat 's ass that the unwashed masses go online and argue pointlessly without logic , grammar , basic literacy , or willingness to lose an argument .
The internet has created a publicly viewable forum for people of all backgrounds to spout their close-minded worldviews .
Unfortunately , people who would never espouse their racist , ignorant , or outright confrontational contrary to personal beliefs in a public setting ( where their identity is known as a basis of their espousal ) make up for their quietness in the real world by doing so online .
The two or three insightful posts are hidden away in the crowd of stupidity , ignored because they do n't agree with your personal worldview ( as opposed to factual information , or what used to be on the news prior to ratings ) , and ultimately butchered and improperly diagnosed later as " a reaction to/from our viewers .
" Public opinion does n't merit airtime .
For example , the fact that a statistically significant percentage of people believe that creationism should be taught in public schools , or that flu vaccines can give you aids , or having a reporter report that the news he just announced has touched many people in many ways ( and here 's 20 minutes of random people reacting to it ) is not deserving of airtime .
Of course , when you have 24 hours news , and only 30 minutes of news , the majority of it will be meaningless crap .
When you let people comment on meaningless crap , you really should n't expect a whole lot of insight.If people had anything of use to say in online forums , they would n't be arguing about it with strangers on the internet .
They would be finding a way to monetize their ideas .
Not through the press of a blog or newstation or political avenue , but through a business or investment method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The rich and the corporatti don't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit.I have to completely disagree with your last point.The rich and the corporations (your words) don't give a rat's ass that the unwashed masses go online and argue pointlessly without logic, grammar, basic literacy, or willingness to lose an argument.
The internet has created a publicly viewable forum for people of all backgrounds to spout their close-minded worldviews.
Unfortunately, people who would never espouse their racist, ignorant, or outright confrontational contrary to personal beliefs in a public setting (where their identity is known as a basis of their espousal) make up for their quietness in the real world by doing so online.
The two or three insightful posts are hidden away in the crowd of stupidity, ignored because they don't agree with your personal worldview (as opposed to factual information, or what used to be on the news prior to ratings), and ultimately butchered and improperly diagnosed later as "a reaction to/from our viewers.
"Public opinion doesn't merit airtime.
For example, the fact that a statistically significant percentage of people believe that creationism should be taught in public schools, or that flu vaccines can give you aids, or having a reporter report that the news he just announced has touched many people in many ways (and here's 20 minutes of random people reacting to it) is not deserving of airtime.
Of course, when you have 24 hours news, and only 30 minutes of news, the majority of it will be meaningless crap.
When you let people comment on meaningless crap, you really shouldn't expect a whole lot of insight.If people had anything of use to say in online forums, they wouldn't be arguing about it with strangers on the internet.
They would be finding a way to monetize their ideas.
Not through the press of a blog or newstation or political avenue, but through a business or investment method.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079708</id>
	<title>Stop crying people.</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1258023000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its rather obvious that random idiots posts are far more important and factual than any televised news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its rather obvious that random idiots posts are far more important and factual than any televised news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its rather obvious that random idiots posts are far more important and factual than any televised news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074358</id>
	<title>Re:pot kettle black</title>
	<author>bwalling</author>
	<datestamp>1258048440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What makes him so special?</p></div></blockquote><p>One would hope that the major news organizations would use some discretion in their hiring of reporters and columnists such that they are of notably higher quality than the random Internet commenter.  Obviously, we can all point to individuals that have been given these platforms seemingly undeservedly, but the general idea should still hold - the average journalist for a major outlet should be better able to filter and interpret events than the average Twitterer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes him so special ? One would hope that the major news organizations would use some discretion in their hiring of reporters and columnists such that they are of notably higher quality than the random Internet commenter .
Obviously , we can all point to individuals that have been given these platforms seemingly undeservedly , but the general idea should still hold - the average journalist for a major outlet should be better able to filter and interpret events than the average Twitterer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes him so special?One would hope that the major news organizations would use some discretion in their hiring of reporters and columnists such that they are of notably higher quality than the random Internet commenter.
Obviously, we can all point to individuals that have been given these platforms seemingly undeservedly, but the general idea should still hold - the average journalist for a major outlet should be better able to filter and interpret events than the average Twitterer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing infusing the news with twitter comments and real time viewer feedback does for me on television is anger me by having the typical mouth-breathing idiot's opinion spewed from their trailer to the rest of the world on a massive broadcast when I'd rather just be getting news. I just want to know what events are right now. I don't need to hear @bootycakes (a real twitter name I saw on CNN once) have their uninformed opinion in 65 characters parroted by Don Lemon over live TV.</p><p>CNN was the last news I bothered to watch on TV and I haven't even really watched that since just after the election. I'm a bit of a news-hound and a political junkie, but too much of this "ireport" and "udecide" and "twitter" and "facebook" and "call in and share your opinion" and "youtube the news" crap has kind of driven me away entirely. I'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing infusing the news with twitter comments and real time viewer feedback does for me on television is anger me by having the typical mouth-breathing idiot 's opinion spewed from their trailer to the rest of the world on a massive broadcast when I 'd rather just be getting news .
I just want to know what events are right now .
I do n't need to hear @ bootycakes ( a real twitter name I saw on CNN once ) have their uninformed opinion in 65 characters parroted by Don Lemon over live TV.CNN was the last news I bothered to watch on TV and I have n't even really watched that since just after the election .
I 'm a bit of a news-hound and a political junkie , but too much of this " ireport " and " udecide " and " twitter " and " facebook " and " call in and share your opinion " and " youtube the news " crap has kind of driven me away entirely .
I 'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing infusing the news with twitter comments and real time viewer feedback does for me on television is anger me by having the typical mouth-breathing idiot's opinion spewed from their trailer to the rest of the world on a massive broadcast when I'd rather just be getting news.
I just want to know what events are right now.
I don't need to hear @bootycakes (a real twitter name I saw on CNN once) have their uninformed opinion in 65 characters parroted by Don Lemon over live TV.CNN was the last news I bothered to watch on TV and I haven't even really watched that since just after the election.
I'm a bit of a news-hound and a political junkie, but too much of this "ireport" and "udecide" and "twitter" and "facebook" and "call in and share your opinion" and "youtube the news" crap has kind of driven me away entirely.
I'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077688</id>
	<title>Re:Three words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258059060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're definitely are not entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're definitely are not entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're definitely are not entertainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073554</id>
	<title>CNN is desperately looking for a voice</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1258045080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They used to be #1 and relevant.  But, then Fox went Right and MSNBC went Left, and they found themselves in the middle grasping for an identity.  The problem is CNN abandoned legitimate news coverage long ago to become the entertainment news channel.  They even had a prime time all-entertainment news show.  I'm a real-news junkie and I've tried recently to watch CNN, but I just can't stomach the constant Britney Spears/Angelina Jolie social life updates.  They gambled that they'd pick up the idiot demographic by going this route and all they've done is alienate their base.  Good luck, maybe they'll have more success with a format change like The Nashville Network?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They used to be # 1 and relevant .
But , then Fox went Right and MSNBC went Left , and they found themselves in the middle grasping for an identity .
The problem is CNN abandoned legitimate news coverage long ago to become the entertainment news channel .
They even had a prime time all-entertainment news show .
I 'm a real-news junkie and I 've tried recently to watch CNN , but I just ca n't stomach the constant Britney Spears/Angelina Jolie social life updates .
They gambled that they 'd pick up the idiot demographic by going this route and all they 've done is alienate their base .
Good luck , maybe they 'll have more success with a format change like The Nashville Network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They used to be #1 and relevant.
But, then Fox went Right and MSNBC went Left, and they found themselves in the middle grasping for an identity.
The problem is CNN abandoned legitimate news coverage long ago to become the entertainment news channel.
They even had a prime time all-entertainment news show.
I'm a real-news junkie and I've tried recently to watch CNN, but I just can't stomach the constant Britney Spears/Angelina Jolie social life updates.
They gambled that they'd pick up the idiot demographic by going this route and all they've done is alienate their base.
Good luck, maybe they'll have more success with a format change like The Nashville Network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072244</id>
	<title>whoops</title>
	<author>metamechanical</author>
	<datestamp>1258039740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news [...]</p></div><p>Yeah, that's definitely where you went wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news [ ... ] Yeah , that 's definitely where you went wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news [...]Yeah, that's definitely where you went wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073124</id>
	<title>Like Military Intelligence</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1258043280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The advantage of Twitter is that it can offer raw data when there are quickly developing events. One of the problems with that is that it hasn't been vetted. Questions like "How trustworthy is the source?" or "Do these reports together indicate a trend?" haven't been asked. That's the job of CNN's reporters. And that's what news articles are for. But I don't think you can complain about having access to the raw data feed. So there are people whose intelligence rivals inanimate objects with the ability to upload their observations and thoughts; if you don't want that, don't use Twitter.</p><p>Military Intelligence is the same way. The data can be phone calls from informants or reconnaissance photos, but it still needs vetting. As long as leadership remembers they're looking at unprocessed data, there's nothing wrong with them accessing the raw feed. Of course, getting them to remember that can be tricky, but that's another issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The advantage of Twitter is that it can offer raw data when there are quickly developing events .
One of the problems with that is that it has n't been vetted .
Questions like " How trustworthy is the source ?
" or " Do these reports together indicate a trend ?
" have n't been asked .
That 's the job of CNN 's reporters .
And that 's what news articles are for .
But I do n't think you can complain about having access to the raw data feed .
So there are people whose intelligence rivals inanimate objects with the ability to upload their observations and thoughts ; if you do n't want that , do n't use Twitter.Military Intelligence is the same way .
The data can be phone calls from informants or reconnaissance photos , but it still needs vetting .
As long as leadership remembers they 're looking at unprocessed data , there 's nothing wrong with them accessing the raw feed .
Of course , getting them to remember that can be tricky , but that 's another issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advantage of Twitter is that it can offer raw data when there are quickly developing events.
One of the problems with that is that it hasn't been vetted.
Questions like "How trustworthy is the source?
" or "Do these reports together indicate a trend?
" haven't been asked.
That's the job of CNN's reporters.
And that's what news articles are for.
But I don't think you can complain about having access to the raw data feed.
So there are people whose intelligence rivals inanimate objects with the ability to upload their observations and thoughts; if you don't want that, don't use Twitter.Military Intelligence is the same way.
The data can be phone calls from informants or reconnaissance photos, but it still needs vetting.
As long as leadership remembers they're looking at unprocessed data, there's nothing wrong with them accessing the raw feed.
Of course, getting them to remember that can be tricky, but that's another issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074526</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1258049100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Twitter comments you see on the news have just confirmed to me that Twitter, except for some very specific uses, is mostly worse than useless.  The 140 character limit seems to almost guarantee that the message is going to be inane.</p><p>Newspapers have had a letters to the editor section for hundreds of years and at times that section was actually considered one of the main forums for political discourse.  You might not always agree with a letter to the editor, but they are generally reasonably well written and do have some sort of point - likely because the effort involved forms an effective barrier to the knee jerk reactors.  Twitter has no such barrier.  Rather the opposite - anyone who wants to make a deliberate, considered argument is turned off by Twitter because you simply can't fit such a thing in 140 characters.</p><p>One of the local news channels that has a Twitter section adds to the uselessness by carefully selecting the comments so that they are equally divided between yay and nay, and generally presented in alternating order.  It's like an online poll where the results are fixed at 50/50.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Twitter comments you see on the news have just confirmed to me that Twitter , except for some very specific uses , is mostly worse than useless .
The 140 character limit seems to almost guarantee that the message is going to be inane.Newspapers have had a letters to the editor section for hundreds of years and at times that section was actually considered one of the main forums for political discourse .
You might not always agree with a letter to the editor , but they are generally reasonably well written and do have some sort of point - likely because the effort involved forms an effective barrier to the knee jerk reactors .
Twitter has no such barrier .
Rather the opposite - anyone who wants to make a deliberate , considered argument is turned off by Twitter because you simply ca n't fit such a thing in 140 characters.One of the local news channels that has a Twitter section adds to the uselessness by carefully selecting the comments so that they are equally divided between yay and nay , and generally presented in alternating order .
It 's like an online poll where the results are fixed at 50/50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Twitter comments you see on the news have just confirmed to me that Twitter, except for some very specific uses, is mostly worse than useless.
The 140 character limit seems to almost guarantee that the message is going to be inane.Newspapers have had a letters to the editor section for hundreds of years and at times that section was actually considered one of the main forums for political discourse.
You might not always agree with a letter to the editor, but they are generally reasonably well written and do have some sort of point - likely because the effort involved forms an effective barrier to the knee jerk reactors.
Twitter has no such barrier.
Rather the opposite - anyone who wants to make a deliberate, considered argument is turned off by Twitter because you simply can't fit such a thing in 140 characters.One of the local news channels that has a Twitter section adds to the uselessness by carefully selecting the comments so that they are equally divided between yay and nay, and generally presented in alternating order.
It's like an online poll where the results are fixed at 50/50.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073282</id>
	<title>Poor guy is behind the times</title>
	<author>HoldmyCauls</author>
	<datestamp>1258043880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone want to inform him that a cell phone + $15/mo is all you need to twitter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone want to inform him that a cell phone + $ 15/mo is all you need to twitter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone want to inform him that a cell phone + $15/mo is all you need to twitter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</id>
	<title>Comments</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1258039380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members, it just doesn't work everywhere. If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members , it just does n't work everywhere .
If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionals , not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members, it just doesn't work everywhere.
If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072492</id>
	<title>everything has its pros and cons</title>
	<author>Picardo85</author>
	<datestamp>1258040700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things."
<br> <br>
The new age brings with it new trolls.
<br> <br>
Except from that - it's not just in the US where news media has seen its best but also in scandinavia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a good example is a website where you could creat a transfer contract for a soccer player. Several magazines in sweden fell right into that trap and published that a famous player had signed a contract with a club in europe. No one checks facts anymore it seems.
<br> <br>
When it comes to user comments on stories it's not always good I do agree on that but it acts as a forum for debate on certain subjects which can be good. Or at least in these cases as long as you need to be a registerd user. Too many times there is no name to connect with the opinions which can cause negative effects in several ways. A forum at my school sufferd from anon usage since there was a hot debate over an election and it got a bit out of hand which led to the debate getting mentioned in several news media which didn't fact check and that in turn lead to a blow towards our schools reputation (one of the leading schools in the country in its area)
<br> <br>
So to sum it up, maybe not all stories need to have comments avaliable. That and the news agencies do need to catch up on their fact checking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionals , not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things .
" The new age brings with it new trolls .
Except from that - it 's not just in the US where news media has seen its best but also in scandinavia ... a good example is a website where you could creat a transfer contract for a soccer player .
Several magazines in sweden fell right into that trap and published that a famous player had signed a contract with a club in europe .
No one checks facts anymore it seems .
When it comes to user comments on stories it 's not always good I do agree on that but it acts as a forum for debate on certain subjects which can be good .
Or at least in these cases as long as you need to be a registerd user .
Too many times there is no name to connect with the opinions which can cause negative effects in several ways .
A forum at my school sufferd from anon usage since there was a hot debate over an election and it got a bit out of hand which led to the debate getting mentioned in several news media which did n't fact check and that in turn lead to a blow towards our schools reputation ( one of the leading schools in the country in its area ) So to sum it up , maybe not all stories need to have comments avaliable .
That and the news agencies do need to catch up on their fact checking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.
"
 
The new age brings with it new trolls.
Except from that - it's not just in the US where news media has seen its best but also in scandinavia ... a good example is a website where you could creat a transfer contract for a soccer player.
Several magazines in sweden fell right into that trap and published that a famous player had signed a contract with a club in europe.
No one checks facts anymore it seems.
When it comes to user comments on stories it's not always good I do agree on that but it acts as a forum for debate on certain subjects which can be good.
Or at least in these cases as long as you need to be a registerd user.
Too many times there is no name to connect with the opinions which can cause negative effects in several ways.
A forum at my school sufferd from anon usage since there was a hot debate over an election and it got a bit out of hand which led to the debate getting mentioned in several news media which didn't fact check and that in turn lead to a blow towards our schools reputation (one of the leading schools in the country in its area)
 
So to sum it up, maybe not all stories need to have comments avaliable.
That and the news agencies do need to catch up on their fact checking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073076</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>SkyDude</author>
	<datestamp>1258043100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All other comments can be deleted now - AC got it right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All other comments can be deleted now - AC got it right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All other comments can be deleted now - AC got it right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072858</id>
	<title>Opinions are like buttocks</title>
	<author>WillAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1258042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only those which are well-formed should be shown in public.</p><p>William</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only those which are well-formed should be shown in public.William</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only those which are well-formed should be shown in public.William</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072938</id>
	<title>Re:Irony or hypocracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258042620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hypocracy? What's that? The rule of the sub-standard?</p><p>Hypocrisy, on the other hand, makes more sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypocracy ?
What 's that ?
The rule of the sub-standard ? Hypocrisy , on the other hand , makes more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypocracy?
What's that?
The rule of the sub-standard?Hypocrisy, on the other hand, makes more sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072536</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1258040940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <b>If I'm watching [...] TV</b>, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,</p></div></blockquote><p>I think I found your problem.
</p><p>CNN is in 4th place right now. They are desperate. Last month, they were <i>not</i> in the list of the 30 most watched cable channels for the first time.
</p><p>They're all terrible. Mostly it's simple facts: there isn't 2 hours of news most days, let alone 24. If you had really good reporters digging for weeks you could get some good content, but that would be <i>really</i> expensive. It's easier reporting on a 5 car crash on a freeway somewhere for 2 hours and asking various "professional" panelists "Could this be some kind of terrorist attack?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm watching [ ... ] TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,I think I found your problem .
CNN is in 4th place right now .
They are desperate .
Last month , they were not in the list of the 30 most watched cable channels for the first time .
They 're all terrible .
Mostly it 's simple facts : there is n't 2 hours of news most days , let alone 24 .
If you had really good reporters digging for weeks you could get some good content , but that would be really expensive .
It 's easier reporting on a 5 car crash on a freeway somewhere for 2 hours and asking various " professional " panelists " Could this be some kind of terrorist attack ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If I'm watching [...] TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,I think I found your problem.
CNN is in 4th place right now.
They are desperate.
Last month, they were not in the list of the 30 most watched cable channels for the first time.
They're all terrible.
Mostly it's simple facts: there isn't 2 hours of news most days, let alone 24.
If you had really good reporters digging for weeks you could get some good content, but that would be really expensive.
It's easier reporting on a 5 car crash on a freeway somewhere for 2 hours and asking various "professional" panelists "Could this be some kind of terrorist attack?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073766</id>
	<title>Re:The ironing is delicious</title>
	<author>sa1lnr</author>
	<datestamp>1258046160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How funny is that"</p><p>Yea, I creased up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How funny is that " Yea , I creased up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How funny is that"Yea, I creased up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073512</id>
	<title>What Slashdot has going for it...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1258044840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is the moderation system. It's not perfect, but it does improve the signal-to-noise ratio considerably. Maybe the editors at CNN.com or wherever are fulfilling this function over there, but it's not clear to me. In any case, I concur: I'm not really going to CNN to see what a bunch of random people think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is the moderation system .
It 's not perfect , but it does improve the signal-to-noise ratio considerably .
Maybe the editors at CNN.com or wherever are fulfilling this function over there , but it 's not clear to me .
In any case , I concur : I 'm not really going to CNN to see what a bunch of random people think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is the moderation system.
It's not perfect, but it does improve the signal-to-noise ratio considerably.
Maybe the editors at CNN.com or wherever are fulfilling this function over there, but it's not clear to me.
In any case, I concur: I'm not really going to CNN to see what a bunch of random people think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076576</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Random BedHead Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1258055100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on. Do we really need another?</p></div><p>Ah, but <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y" title="youtube.com">look how useful the musings of the masses</a> [youtube.com] can be when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP-rkzJ6yZw&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">big news happens</a> [youtube.com] (yes, it's relevant to TFA, but in general you owe it to yourself to check out some of Mitchell and Webb's sketches if you haven't seen them before).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on .
Do we really need another ? Ah , but look how useful the musings of the masses [ youtube.com ] can be when big news happens [ youtube.com ] ( yes , it 's relevant to TFA , but in general you owe it to yourself to check out some of Mitchell and Webb 's sketches if you have n't seen them before ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on.
Do we really need another?Ah, but look how useful the musings of the masses [youtube.com] can be when big news happens [youtube.com] (yes, it's relevant to TFA, but in general you owe it to yourself to check out some of Mitchell and Webb's sketches if you haven't seen them before).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073932</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1258046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals</p></div></blockquote><p>Wow.  When you find any, let me know, will you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionalsWow .
When you find any , let me know , will you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionalsWow.
When you find any, let me know, will you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072614</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1258041300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members, it just doesn't work everywhere. If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals</p></div><p>My wife was complaining about CNN weather (German/International version) the other day, she didn't like the fact that they showed some maps using Google earth (sometimes you could even see the mouse hand). She said "if I want to look at google earth I would go at my computer". Our guess is that CNN is cutting costs going for the free tool. But yeah, it looks a bit less professional.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members , it just does n't work everywhere .
If I 'm watching CNN from TV , I 'm looking for intelligent , fact-checked news and opinions from professionalsMy wife was complaining about CNN weather ( German/International version ) the other day , she did n't like the fact that they showed some maps using Google earth ( sometimes you could even see the mouse hand ) .
She said " if I want to look at google earth I would go at my computer " .
Our guess is that CNN is cutting costs going for the free tool .
But yeah , it looks a bit less professional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members, it just doesn't work everywhere.
If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionalsMy wife was complaining about CNN weather (German/International version) the other day, she didn't like the fact that they showed some maps using Google earth (sometimes you could even see the mouse hand).
She said "if I want to look at google earth I would go at my computer".
Our guess is that CNN is cutting costs going for the free tool.
But yeah, it looks a bit less professional.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072696</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>mbrod</author>
	<datestamp>1258041600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe we are seeing people on Slashdot post this about the Corporate News sites.<br><br>They are not about facts, news or being intelligent. Did you see CNN's coverage of the balloon boy fiasco?<br><br>The Corporate News is about entertainment, giving the viewers what they want to see and making money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe we are seeing people on Slashdot post this about the Corporate News sites.They are not about facts , news or being intelligent .
Did you see CNN 's coverage of the balloon boy fiasco ? The Corporate News is about entertainment , giving the viewers what they want to see and making money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe we are seeing people on Slashdot post this about the Corporate News sites.They are not about facts, news or being intelligent.
Did you see CNN's coverage of the balloon boy fiasco?The Corporate News is about entertainment, giving the viewers what they want to see and making money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073536</id>
	<title>Individual Discernment</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258045020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another article about how someone doesn't like what another person is saying and thinks it should be limited.  It may be that we don't like the fact that the same channel shows news, analysis, and commentary, or that the lines of those are blurring.  If you think it's a phenomenon of modern life, I direct you to the campaign that put Thomas Jefferson in office.  The bottom line is that people will say all sorts of things.  With the guaranteed First Amendment freedom to be one of those people, we all have the responsibility to be prudent in our consumption of information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another article about how someone does n't like what another person is saying and thinks it should be limited .
It may be that we do n't like the fact that the same channel shows news , analysis , and commentary , or that the lines of those are blurring .
If you think it 's a phenomenon of modern life , I direct you to the campaign that put Thomas Jefferson in office .
The bottom line is that people will say all sorts of things .
With the guaranteed First Amendment freedom to be one of those people , we all have the responsibility to be prudent in our consumption of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another article about how someone doesn't like what another person is saying and thinks it should be limited.
It may be that we don't like the fact that the same channel shows news, analysis, and commentary, or that the lines of those are blurring.
If you think it's a phenomenon of modern life, I direct you to the campaign that put Thomas Jefferson in office.
The bottom line is that people will say all sorts of things.
With the guaranteed First Amendment freedom to be one of those people, we all have the responsibility to be prudent in our consumption of information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072558</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258041060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has to be the first thought that pops into the head of any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er</p><p>OTOH other media outlets (CBC radio and TV eg) have long had a listener feedback segment but that is moderated not twitted...   so you actually have to take the time to think about what you are saying and express it in a way that gets the message across.</p><p>Wot an old fart I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has to be the first thought that pops into the head of any /.erOTOH other media outlets ( CBC radio and TV eg ) have long had a listener feedback segment but that is moderated not twitted... so you actually have to take the time to think about what you are saying and express it in a way that gets the message across.Wot an old fart I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has to be the first thought that pops into the head of any /.erOTOH other media outlets (CBC radio and TV eg) have long had a listener feedback segment but that is moderated not twitted...   so you actually have to take the time to think about what you are saying and express it in a way that gets the message across.Wot an old fart I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344</id>
	<title>So how do we fix it?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1258044120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of bitching about how bad news is (which is obvious and easy), let's think of ways to fix it (more difficult and interesting).<br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_</p><p>Is it possible for news to be objective AND a product?</p><p>i've been wondering if reporters should be part of some non-profit system.  To have a press pass you have to pass some kind of ethics class and receive a license.  If you violate the standards, they revoke your press pass.  No press pass = no freedom of the press for you.  The White House and companies can exclude you from press conferences on that basis if they like.  If you try to do investigative journalism w/o a pass, the people you spied upon can sue you.  Maybe celebrities won't let you interview them if you don't have the pass.</p><p>Perhaps you can't call yourself a reporter (or some other title) unless you have your pass.</p><p>A for profit company can hire you, but you are still accountable to the board.  Your employer might not care if you have a press pass, but the people you talk to might, as might viewers.  CNN might fire someone who lost their pass, or has cost them viewership.</p><p>Non-profit news organizations can sell articles to for-profit venues. Or maybe they can charge all they want, but otherwise have to conform to the rule for being a non-profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of bitching about how bad news is ( which is obvious and easy ) , let 's think of ways to fix it ( more difficult and interesting ) . \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _Is it possible for news to be objective AND a product ? i 've been wondering if reporters should be part of some non-profit system .
To have a press pass you have to pass some kind of ethics class and receive a license .
If you violate the standards , they revoke your press pass .
No press pass = no freedom of the press for you .
The White House and companies can exclude you from press conferences on that basis if they like .
If you try to do investigative journalism w/o a pass , the people you spied upon can sue you .
Maybe celebrities wo n't let you interview them if you do n't have the pass.Perhaps you ca n't call yourself a reporter ( or some other title ) unless you have your pass.A for profit company can hire you , but you are still accountable to the board .
Your employer might not care if you have a press pass , but the people you talk to might , as might viewers .
CNN might fire someone who lost their pass , or has cost them viewership.Non-profit news organizations can sell articles to for-profit venues .
Or maybe they can charge all they want , but otherwise have to conform to the rule for being a non-profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of bitching about how bad news is (which is obvious and easy), let's think of ways to fix it (more difficult and interesting).\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Is it possible for news to be objective AND a product?i've been wondering if reporters should be part of some non-profit system.
To have a press pass you have to pass some kind of ethics class and receive a license.
If you violate the standards, they revoke your press pass.
No press pass = no freedom of the press for you.
The White House and companies can exclude you from press conferences on that basis if they like.
If you try to do investigative journalism w/o a pass, the people you spied upon can sue you.
Maybe celebrities won't let you interview them if you don't have the pass.Perhaps you can't call yourself a reporter (or some other title) unless you have your pass.A for profit company can hire you, but you are still accountable to the board.
Your employer might not care if you have a press pass, but the people you talk to might, as might viewers.
CNN might fire someone who lost their pass, or has cost them viewership.Non-profit news organizations can sell articles to for-profit venues.
Or maybe they can charge all they want, but otherwise have to conform to the rule for being a non-profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30083976</id>
	<title>Yeah! Internet is bad! People aren't expert enough</title>
	<author>REALMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1258053300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Who needs those pesky internet people giving their opinions. We need to shut down those blogs too, after all, they haven't been qualified as experts. While we're at it lets eliminate any and all websites except those by the "experts". Who wants to see Billy Jo Bob's website anyhow? We can also eliminate any form of chatting unless there's an professional moderating the chat to tell us how to speak to each other. I think maybe we shouldn't even leave our houses unless there is an expert to hold our hand and tell us when it's safe to cross the street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Who needs those pesky internet people giving their opinions .
We need to shut down those blogs too , after all , they have n't been qualified as experts .
While we 're at it lets eliminate any and all websites except those by the " experts " .
Who wants to see Billy Jo Bob 's website anyhow ?
We can also eliminate any form of chatting unless there 's an professional moderating the chat to tell us how to speak to each other .
I think maybe we should n't even leave our houses unless there is an expert to hold our hand and tell us when it 's safe to cross the street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Who needs those pesky internet people giving their opinions.
We need to shut down those blogs too, after all, they haven't been qualified as experts.
While we're at it lets eliminate any and all websites except those by the "experts".
Who wants to see Billy Jo Bob's website anyhow?
We can also eliminate any form of chatting unless there's an professional moderating the chat to tell us how to speak to each other.
I think maybe we shouldn't even leave our houses unless there is an expert to hold our hand and tell us when it's safe to cross the street.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073182</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258043520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking "Yeah!  Because the reporters already do that!  Unfortunately they cost more too."</p><p>Why on Earth are they wasting airtime putting twitter on TV?  Answer: Because it's cheaper than making informed commentary.  We've gone from "Reality TV" to "Reality TV News".</p><p>I'm starting to think the "news" networks should just set up a camera at the local grocery store and post a sign saying "What's your opinion on issue X?  Look this way (arrow) into camera and speak your mind."  Change the sign once a week and set up 20 of them with different questions.  Imagine the savings when they can fire their whole newsroom and investigative journalism staff!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking " Yeah !
Because the reporters already do that !
Unfortunately they cost more too .
" Why on Earth are they wasting airtime putting twitter on TV ?
Answer : Because it 's cheaper than making informed commentary .
We 've gone from " Reality TV " to " Reality TV News " .I 'm starting to think the " news " networks should just set up a camera at the local grocery store and post a sign saying " What 's your opinion on issue X ?
Look this way ( arrow ) into camera and speak your mind .
" Change the sign once a week and set up 20 of them with different questions .
Imagine the savings when they can fire their whole newsroom and investigative journalism staff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking "Yeah!
Because the reporters already do that!
Unfortunately they cost more too.
"Why on Earth are they wasting airtime putting twitter on TV?
Answer: Because it's cheaper than making informed commentary.
We've gone from "Reality TV" to "Reality TV News".I'm starting to think the "news" networks should just set up a camera at the local grocery store and post a sign saying "What's your opinion on issue X?
Look this way (arrow) into camera and speak your mind.
"  Change the sign once a week and set up 20 of them with different questions.
Imagine the savings when they can fire their whole newsroom and investigative journalism staff!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074054</id>
	<title>Re:So how do we fix it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody who thinks that "progressives" are for freedom and liberty should take a long look at the post above. Thank you for revealing the truth of who you are - someone who wants to control what other people can do. Someone who doesn't want people to be able to have the freedom to speak their minds unless they toe the official line.</p><p>A message for you and all like you - you will NOT win. You will not impose your view of the world on everyone else, and you will not force those who oppose you to be silent. There are more people in the US who still believe in liberty (including the liberty to say ridiculous, untrue things) than there are who will submit to the smothering embrace of government-imposed standards of belief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody who thinks that " progressives " are for freedom and liberty should take a long look at the post above .
Thank you for revealing the truth of who you are - someone who wants to control what other people can do .
Someone who does n't want people to be able to have the freedom to speak their minds unless they toe the official line.A message for you and all like you - you will NOT win .
You will not impose your view of the world on everyone else , and you will not force those who oppose you to be silent .
There are more people in the US who still believe in liberty ( including the liberty to say ridiculous , untrue things ) than there are who will submit to the smothering embrace of government-imposed standards of belief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody who thinks that "progressives" are for freedom and liberty should take a long look at the post above.
Thank you for revealing the truth of who you are - someone who wants to control what other people can do.
Someone who doesn't want people to be able to have the freedom to speak their minds unless they toe the official line.A message for you and all like you - you will NOT win.
You will not impose your view of the world on everyone else, and you will not force those who oppose you to be silent.
There are more people in the US who still believe in liberty (including the liberty to say ridiculous, untrue things) than there are who will submit to the smothering embrace of government-imposed standards of belief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I tell my 12 year old to question all news, and more importantly, to realize that "to yell is to sell", [fear that is]. I turned my TV off after the Nov election. I watch movies and foxnews.com. The only reason I choose Fox is because I don't like the lock CNN has in the airports. I travel every week and it isn't fair that I am forced to watch CNN. Hey slashdot, someone write a map app showing "quiet" spots in airports. Thats where I sit.</p><p><a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">Up to 30k</a> [wikispeedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I tell my 12 year old to question all news , and more importantly , to realize that " to yell is to sell " , [ fear that is ] .
I turned my TV off after the Nov election .
I watch movies and foxnews.com .
The only reason I choose Fox is because I do n't like the lock CNN has in the airports .
I travel every week and it is n't fair that I am forced to watch CNN .
Hey slashdot , someone write a map app showing " quiet " spots in airports .
Thats where I sit.Up to 30k [ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I tell my 12 year old to question all news, and more importantly, to realize that "to yell is to sell", [fear that is].
I turned my TV off after the Nov election.
I watch movies and foxnews.com.
The only reason I choose Fox is because I don't like the lock CNN has in the airports.
I travel every week and it isn't fair that I am forced to watch CNN.
Hey slashdot, someone write a map app showing "quiet" spots in airports.
Thats where I sit.Up to 30k [wikispeedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072882</id>
	<title>Amen</title>
	<author>flunfla</author>
	<datestamp>1258042380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least someone at CNN still thinks they're in the news business.  Everyone else seems to be thoroughly convinced that it is better to be in the entertainment business.  If I want to know what @stinky has to say, i can follow them directly in Twitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least someone at CNN still thinks they 're in the news business .
Everyone else seems to be thoroughly convinced that it is better to be in the entertainment business .
If I want to know what @ stinky has to say , i can follow them directly in Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least someone at CNN still thinks they're in the news business.
Everyone else seems to be thoroughly convinced that it is better to be in the entertainment business.
If I want to know what @stinky has to say, i can follow them directly in Twitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076350</id>
	<title>Astroblogging</title>
	<author>jythie</author>
	<datestamp>1258054380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the other amusing things I have found about CNN's attempt to capitalize on 'bloggy' type technology is they have added (in two iterations so far) comments to their news story so now people can sit and discuss them.</p><p>At first it looks like any other 'read and discuss' setup, except they have people heavily prune the comments in order to get an artificial 'balance'.  I am not sure what criteria they use, but it is not connected to number of reply, number of likes, or even the content.</p><p>My best guess is that they want to have a carefully manicured blog to match the strictly controlled story so as to present an editorially consistent package to the passive reader.  Which is why I consider them pretend comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the other amusing things I have found about CNN 's attempt to capitalize on 'bloggy ' type technology is they have added ( in two iterations so far ) comments to their news story so now people can sit and discuss them.At first it looks like any other 'read and discuss ' setup , except they have people heavily prune the comments in order to get an artificial 'balance' .
I am not sure what criteria they use , but it is not connected to number of reply , number of likes , or even the content.My best guess is that they want to have a carefully manicured blog to match the strictly controlled story so as to present an editorially consistent package to the passive reader .
Which is why I consider them pretend comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the other amusing things I have found about CNN's attempt to capitalize on 'bloggy' type technology is they have added (in two iterations so far) comments to their news story so now people can sit and discuss them.At first it looks like any other 'read and discuss' setup, except they have people heavily prune the comments in order to get an artificial 'balance'.
I am not sure what criteria they use, but it is not connected to number of reply, number of likes, or even the content.My best guess is that they want to have a carefully manicured blog to match the strictly controlled story so as to present an editorially consistent package to the passive reader.
Which is why I consider them pretend comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074340</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah!</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1258048380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from the opinions i catch on the rare day i'm passing by a screen oozing cable news pollutants "half-baked" is optimistic. ambient temp is more like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the opinions i catch on the rare day i 'm passing by a screen oozing cable news pollutants " half-baked " is optimistic .
ambient temp is more like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the opinions i catch on the rare day i'm passing by a screen oozing cable news pollutants "half-baked" is optimistic.
ambient temp is more like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076046</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1258053480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How on God's Earth do you manage to tolerate "most of Reddit"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How on God 's Earth do you manage to tolerate " most of Reddit " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How on God's Earth do you manage to tolerate "most of Reddit"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072230</id>
	<title>CNN Fake war coverage</title>
	<author>nickmalthus</author>
	<datestamp>1258039620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>CNN will do anything to boost ratings, even <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">fake war coverage</a> [youtube.com] Who would want to watch a news channel that puts corporate profit above journalistic integrity? These guys are right up there with faux news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN will do anything to boost ratings , even fake war coverage [ youtube.com ] Who would want to watch a news channel that puts corporate profit above journalistic integrity ?
These guys are right up there with faux news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN will do anything to boost ratings, even fake war coverage [youtube.com] Who would want to watch a news channel that puts corporate profit above journalistic integrity?
These guys are right up there with faux news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075740</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1258052460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, if they could tabulate all this input and put up some pretty graphs and allow folks to twit in the questions as well as the answers...</p><p><i>I'm at the bar and there's this hot chick I can hook up with but my friend says he heard she's a clingy skank. Should I go for it? She has a tat on her forehead and her back's pierced and laced.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if they could tabulate all this input and put up some pretty graphs and allow folks to twit in the questions as well as the answers...I 'm at the bar and there 's this hot chick I can hook up with but my friend says he heard she 's a clingy skank .
Should I go for it ?
She has a tat on her forehead and her back 's pierced and laced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if they could tabulate all this input and put up some pretty graphs and allow folks to twit in the questions as well as the answers...I'm at the bar and there's this hot chick I can hook up with but my friend says he heard she's a clingy skank.
Should I go for it?
She has a tat on her forehead and her back's pierced and laced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081366</id>
	<title>what about the astroturfers?</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1258029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.</p></div><p>Speak for yourself!  Some of us are paid to voice specific opinions here, and stand a <em>good</em> chance of getting fired if we don't toe our master's line and promote the status quo.</p><p>Oh, and by the way, Vista always worked fine for me, and Win7 is even better, and the Zune is the greatest portable device ever made!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.Speak for yourself !
Some of us are paid to voice specific opinions here , and stand a good chance of getting fired if we do n't toe our master 's line and promote the status quo.Oh , and by the way , Vista always worked fine for me , and Win7 is even better , and the Zune is the greatest portable device ever made !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.Speak for yourself!
Some of us are paid to voice specific opinions here, and stand a good chance of getting fired if we don't toe our master's line and promote the status quo.Oh, and by the way, Vista always worked fine for me, and Win7 is even better, and the Zune is the greatest portable device ever made!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078896</id>
	<title>Mainstream news = entertainment</title>
	<author>abbyful</author>
	<datestamp>1258020300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think mainstream news channels care about accurate, unbiased, factual news? Nope. That doesn't sell. People want drama and shock value. News today is more "entertainment" than "news".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think mainstream news channels care about accurate , unbiased , factual news ?
Nope. That does n't sell .
People want drama and shock value .
News today is more " entertainment " than " news " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think mainstream news channels care about accurate, unbiased, factual news?
Nope. That doesn't sell.
People want drama and shock value.
News today is more "entertainment" than "news".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072356</id>
	<title>Vox populi ...</title>
	<author>Kiliani</author>
	<datestamp>1258040100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Germans have a nice saying for that phenomenon: "Vox populi, vox Rindvieh.", which loosely  translates to "the voice of the people is the voice of idiots." (more precisely, the voice of stupid cows).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Germans have a nice saying for that phenomenon : " Vox populi , vox Rindvieh .
" , which loosely translates to " the voice of the people is the voice of idiots .
" ( more precisely , the voice of stupid cows ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Germans have a nice saying for that phenomenon: "Vox populi, vox Rindvieh.
", which loosely  translates to "the voice of the people is the voice of idiots.
" (more precisely, the voice of stupid cows).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072448</id>
	<title>pot kettle black</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1258040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I see it, Steve Dahl is nothing more than a bonehead with a DS-3 connection. What's the difference other than the number of readers and the username? Isn't Steve Dahl voicing his opinion? Isn't he just a person, and doesn't that mean you or I could post our opinions? What makes him so special?</p><p>Sure, there are some brain-dead yokels on both sides of the spectrum. There are the idiots who worship trees and think that trees feel and believe the "global warming" er "global climate change" chant without asking for the evidence and the raw data (okay, I admit I'm a skeptic given the revelation of how temperature sensors are installed now vs. 40 years ago and what the guidelines dictate. Too many are installed over or next to heat sinks). Then, there are those on the right who pick and choose what to believe in Christianity, you know, pick the part about man having dominion over the earth but ignore the part about being good stewards, etc.</p><p>Both extremes of the spectrum should be totally ignored. Use your brain people, moonbats and neo-cons alike! We each have the biological equivalent of a cluster of supercomputers in our head for a reason: to <i>use</i> it! THINK!   However, that still doesn't mean every moron doesn't have the right to voice an opinion.</p><p>That is just the reality of it when you open your news site up to comments. You're going to invite the whole spectrum, and the sad thing is both moonbats and neocons are equally stupid in equally loud ways, so their posts stand out.</p><p>Including this post.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it , Steve Dahl is nothing more than a bonehead with a DS-3 connection .
What 's the difference other than the number of readers and the username ?
Is n't Steve Dahl voicing his opinion ?
Is n't he just a person , and does n't that mean you or I could post our opinions ?
What makes him so special ? Sure , there are some brain-dead yokels on both sides of the spectrum .
There are the idiots who worship trees and think that trees feel and believe the " global warming " er " global climate change " chant without asking for the evidence and the raw data ( okay , I admit I 'm a skeptic given the revelation of how temperature sensors are installed now vs. 40 years ago and what the guidelines dictate .
Too many are installed over or next to heat sinks ) .
Then , there are those on the right who pick and choose what to believe in Christianity , you know , pick the part about man having dominion over the earth but ignore the part about being good stewards , etc.Both extremes of the spectrum should be totally ignored .
Use your brain people , moonbats and neo-cons alike !
We each have the biological equivalent of a cluster of supercomputers in our head for a reason : to use it !
THINK ! However , that still does n't mean every moron does n't have the right to voice an opinion.That is just the reality of it when you open your news site up to comments .
You 're going to invite the whole spectrum , and the sad thing is both moonbats and neocons are equally stupid in equally loud ways , so their posts stand out.Including this post .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it, Steve Dahl is nothing more than a bonehead with a DS-3 connection.
What's the difference other than the number of readers and the username?
Isn't Steve Dahl voicing his opinion?
Isn't he just a person, and doesn't that mean you or I could post our opinions?
What makes him so special?Sure, there are some brain-dead yokels on both sides of the spectrum.
There are the idiots who worship trees and think that trees feel and believe the "global warming" er "global climate change" chant without asking for the evidence and the raw data (okay, I admit I'm a skeptic given the revelation of how temperature sensors are installed now vs. 40 years ago and what the guidelines dictate.
Too many are installed over or next to heat sinks).
Then, there are those on the right who pick and choose what to believe in Christianity, you know, pick the part about man having dominion over the earth but ignore the part about being good stewards, etc.Both extremes of the spectrum should be totally ignored.
Use your brain people, moonbats and neo-cons alike!
We each have the biological equivalent of a cluster of supercomputers in our head for a reason: to use it!
THINK!   However, that still doesn't mean every moron doesn't have the right to voice an opinion.That is just the reality of it when you open your news site up to comments.
You're going to invite the whole spectrum, and the sad thing is both moonbats and neocons are equally stupid in equally loud ways, so their posts stand out.Including this post.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074840</id>
	<title>Re:Comments</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1258050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I think that some (if not most) major news channels should also have a history channel aspect to them. My favorite example was how after 911, people were saying "WTF is Afghanistan, and why are they attacking us?" Most news channels were simply parroting the political spin of the day ("Because they're evil and Islam is an evil religion full of smelly people")...</p><p>It would have been nice if the news networks were doing documentaries on the creation of Isreal, the Palestinian conflicts, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and our subsequent alliance with Taliban insurgents (and any other relevant details that I may have left out). That information would have been less profitable (and would have led to inevitable accusations of bias and America-hating), but would gone a long way toward helping the public understand what is happening around us (which is supposed to be the point of watching the news).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I think that some ( if not most ) major news channels should also have a history channel aspect to them .
My favorite example was how after 911 , people were saying " WTF is Afghanistan , and why are they attacking us ?
" Most news channels were simply parroting the political spin of the day ( " Because they 're evil and Islam is an evil religion full of smelly people " ) ...It would have been nice if the news networks were doing documentaries on the creation of Isreal , the Palestinian conflicts , the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan , and our subsequent alliance with Taliban insurgents ( and any other relevant details that I may have left out ) .
That information would have been less profitable ( and would have led to inevitable accusations of bias and America-hating ) , but would gone a long way toward helping the public understand what is happening around us ( which is supposed to be the point of watching the news ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I think that some (if not most) major news channels should also have a history channel aspect to them.
My favorite example was how after 911, people were saying "WTF is Afghanistan, and why are they attacking us?
" Most news channels were simply parroting the political spin of the day ("Because they're evil and Islam is an evil religion full of smelly people")...It would have been nice if the news networks were doing documentaries on the creation of Isreal, the Palestinian conflicts, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and our subsequent alliance with Taliban insurgents (and any other relevant details that I may have left out).
That information would have been less profitable (and would have led to inevitable accusations of bias and America-hating), but would gone a long way toward helping the public understand what is happening around us (which is supposed to be the point of watching the news).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072922</id>
	<title>Re:No it should not matter.</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1258042560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree BBC is better than anything we have, but its not perfect. Removing bias from news is difficult, but at least they try.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree BBC is better than anything we have , but its not perfect .
Removing bias from news is difficult , but at least they try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree BBC is better than anything we have, but its not perfect.
Removing bias from news is difficult, but at least they try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079208</id>
	<title>Re:Three words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258021440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are letters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are letters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are letters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140</id>
	<title>Three words</title>
	<author>SlashDotDotDot</author>
	<datestamp>1258043340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.npr.org/" title="npr.org">N</a> [npr.org] <a href="http://www.npr.org/" title="npr.org">P</a> [npr.org] <a href="http://www.npr.org/" title="npr.org">R</a> [npr.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>N [ npr.org ] P [ npr.org ] R [ npr.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N [npr.org] P [npr.org] R [npr.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078664</id>
	<title>Even better one word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.npr.org/" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">NPR</a> [npr.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NPR [ npr.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NPR [npr.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079402</id>
	<title>Re:Three words</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1258022100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give PBS its due as well. If you want to see a TV news show that takes the announcer out of the story, go no further than Newshour.</p><p>And if you want to see the difference in personality that brings, consider the difference between presidential debates moderated by Jim Lehrer and presidential debates moderated by NBC. An example:<br>Lehrer: Gentlemen [Obama and McCain], at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?</p><p>Tim Russert, NBC: Now, did you [Dennis Kucinich] see a UFO?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give PBS its due as well .
If you want to see a TV news show that takes the announcer out of the story , go no further than Newshour.And if you want to see the difference in personality that brings , consider the difference between presidential debates moderated by Jim Lehrer and presidential debates moderated by NBC .
An example : Lehrer : Gentlemen [ Obama and McCain ] , at this very moment tonight , where do you stand on the financial recovery plan ? Tim Russert , NBC : Now , did you [ Dennis Kucinich ] see a UFO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give PBS its due as well.
If you want to see a TV news show that takes the announcer out of the story, go no further than Newshour.And if you want to see the difference in personality that brings, consider the difference between presidential debates moderated by Jim Lehrer and presidential debates moderated by NBC.
An example:Lehrer: Gentlemen [Obama and McCain], at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?Tim Russert, NBC: Now, did you [Dennis Kucinich] see a UFO?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076428</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic Question</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1258054620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's woefully ironic on two fronts.  I have seen a fair share of CNN/Headline news, FOX News, MSNbc, and the rest.  I can safely say that without twitter, email, or other forms of electronic immediate feedback, it's STILL just a person in front of a camera blathering on about a story whilst having a very limited amount of information to back up what they say.</p><p>If you want thoughtfully prepared news, do NOT look on a live feed news channel, plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's woefully ironic on two fronts .
I have seen a fair share of CNN/Headline news , FOX News , MSNbc , and the rest .
I can safely say that without twitter , email , or other forms of electronic immediate feedback , it 's STILL just a person in front of a camera blathering on about a story whilst having a very limited amount of information to back up what they say.If you want thoughtfully prepared news , do NOT look on a live feed news channel , plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's woefully ironic on two fronts.
I have seen a fair share of CNN/Headline news, FOX News, MSNbc, and the rest.
I can safely say that without twitter, email, or other forms of electronic immediate feedback, it's STILL just a person in front of a camera blathering on about a story whilst having a very limited amount of information to back up what they say.If you want thoughtfully prepared news, do NOT look on a live feed news channel, plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072228</id>
	<title>Breaking News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm about to take a shit.</p><p>Just call me dumple stillskin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm about to take a shit.Just call me dumple stillskin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm about to take a shit.Just call me dumple stillskin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30084550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30090236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30087706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1319209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30084550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30090236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073082
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30087706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30081366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30075692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30079208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30078664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30077188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30074504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30076428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30073300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1319209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1319209.30072300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
