<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_20_2152229</id>
	<title>Facebook Campaign Decides UK Christmas Music Charts</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261302060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://moc.liamhsalftagnilkcudylgu/" rel="nofollow">uglyduckling</a> writes <i>"A <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm">grassroots Facebook campaign</a> has pushed the 1990s Rage Against the Machine song 'Killing in the Name Of' to the top of the British music charts for Christmas. The campaign was planned to prevent the <a href="http://xfactor.itv.com/2009/">X-Factor</a> winner from charting Christmas number one, as has been the case for the past four years. It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene, although Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label. Despite this minor detail, it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK, and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook. The Facebook group also asked for donations to charity, and has raised &pound;70,000 for the homeless charity <a href="http://www.shelter.org.uk/">Shelter</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>uglyduckling writes " A grassroots Facebook campaign has pushed the 1990s Rage Against the Machine song 'Killing in the Name Of ' to the top of the British music charts for Christmas .
The campaign was planned to prevent the X-Factor winner from charting Christmas number one , as has been the case for the past four years .
It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene , although Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label .
Despite this minor detail , it 's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK , and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook .
The Facebook group also asked for donations to charity , and has raised   70,000 for the homeless charity Shelter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uglyduckling writes "A grassroots Facebook campaign has pushed the 1990s Rage Against the Machine song 'Killing in the Name Of' to the top of the British music charts for Christmas.
The campaign was planned to prevent the X-Factor winner from charting Christmas number one, as has been the case for the past four years.
It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene, although Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label.
Despite this minor detail, it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK, and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook.
The Facebook group also asked for donations to charity, and has raised £70,000 for the homeless charity Shelter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510782</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>LSD-OBS</author>
	<datestamp>1261399680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet you would not believe how many people are bitching and moaning about how the "spiteful" and "selfish" people with "no tolerance for the tastes of others" have "ruined" the chart results for poor little Joe McElderry and they should be "ashamed of themselves" for being such "sheep".</p><p>No, I'm not kidding. People actually think that. The conversations have hurt my head so much I hardly slept last night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you would not believe how many people are bitching and moaning about how the " spiteful " and " selfish " people with " no tolerance for the tastes of others " have " ruined " the chart results for poor little Joe McElderry and they should be " ashamed of themselves " for being such " sheep " .No , I 'm not kidding .
People actually think that .
The conversations have hurt my head so much I hardly slept last night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you would not believe how many people are bitching and moaning about how the "spiteful" and "selfish" people with "no tolerance for the tastes of others" have "ruined" the chart results for poor little Joe McElderry and they should be "ashamed of themselves" for being such "sheep".No, I'm not kidding.
People actually think that.
The conversations have hurt my head so much I hardly slept last night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514052</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1261420260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you feel like a sucker for helping to line the pockets of Sony execs whilst being convinced by their media output that it was all for anti-commercialism or charity or what-have-you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you feel like a sucker for helping to line the pockets of Sony execs whilst being convinced by their media output that it was all for anti-commercialism or charity or what-have-you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you feel like a sucker for helping to line the pockets of Sony execs whilst being convinced by their media output that it was all for anti-commercialism or charity or what-have-you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510914</id>
	<title>Redneck humbug!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still say they should have voted for the greatest Christmas song of all time:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma\_Got\_Run\_Over\_by\_a\_Reindeer" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma\_Got\_Run\_Over\_by\_a\_Reindeer</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still say they should have voted for the greatest Christmas song of all time : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma \ _Got \ _Run \ _Over \ _by \ _a \ _Reindeer [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still say they should have voted for the greatest Christmas song of all time:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma\_Got\_Run\_Over\_by\_a\_Reindeer [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30525836</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1261507920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe that no one has mentioned Hank the angry drunken Dwarf, and how he spanked Leo DiCaprio in the People Magazine "most beautiful people poll years ago.
<p>
Spank!
</p><p>
Sony and profits, or whatever else is involved here, it also serves as a protest against the constantly regurgitated Pap that has been served up as "popular" music in recent years. It's like totally kewl stuff - if you are twelve years old.
</p><p>
Let's really spank them next year. I say make "In-a Gadda-Da-Vida" the winner. Either the original or the Simpson's cover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that no one has mentioned Hank the angry drunken Dwarf , and how he spanked Leo DiCaprio in the People Magazine " most beautiful people poll years ago .
Spank ! Sony and profits , or whatever else is involved here , it also serves as a protest against the constantly regurgitated Pap that has been served up as " popular " music in recent years .
It 's like totally kewl stuff - if you are twelve years old .
Let 's really spank them next year .
I say make " In-a Gadda-Da-Vida " the winner .
Either the original or the Simpson 's cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that no one has mentioned Hank the angry drunken Dwarf, and how he spanked Leo DiCaprio in the People Magazine "most beautiful people poll years ago.
Spank!

Sony and profits, or whatever else is involved here, it also serves as a protest against the constantly regurgitated Pap that has been served up as "popular" music in recent years.
It's like totally kewl stuff - if you are twelve years old.
Let's really spank them next year.
I say make "In-a Gadda-Da-Vida" the winner.
Either the original or the Simpson's cover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530</id>
	<title>X Factor is Criminal</title>
	<author>igb</author>
	<datestamp>1261396440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I walked into the Yamaha shop in Ginza an hour ago there was a CD player whacking out bloody Susan Boyle massacring John Stewart's Daydream Believer.  There should be a law, there really should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I walked into the Yamaha shop in Ginza an hour ago there was a CD player whacking out bloody Susan Boyle massacring John Stewart 's Daydream Believer .
There should be a law , there really should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I walked into the Yamaha shop in Ginza an hour ago there was a CD player whacking out bloody Susan Boyle massacring John Stewart's Daydream Believer.
There should be a law, there really should.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511238</id>
	<title>Re:X Factor is Criminal</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1261405560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is fair to say that she is a mediocre singer who can attribute her success on her first appearance. People were shocked that this dowdy, mildly retarded frump could sing and it kind of snowballed from there. She didn't even win the final not that winning means squat anyway. Most of the winners of these shows hurtle off into oblivion soon afterwards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is fair to say that she is a mediocre singer who can attribute her success on her first appearance .
People were shocked that this dowdy , mildly retarded frump could sing and it kind of snowballed from there .
She did n't even win the final not that winning means squat anyway .
Most of the winners of these shows hurtle off into oblivion soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is fair to say that she is a mediocre singer who can attribute her success on her first appearance.
People were shocked that this dowdy, mildly retarded frump could sing and it kind of snowballed from there.
She didn't even win the final not that winning means squat anyway.
Most of the winners of these shows hurtle off into oblivion soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511200</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261405200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RATM song cost a total of 29p on Amazon, so they made a grand total of &pound;145,000 from it. After Amazon taking a cut and them paying out artist royalties, Sony probably made less than Shelter did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RATM song cost a total of 29p on Amazon , so they made a grand total of   145,000 from it .
After Amazon taking a cut and them paying out artist royalties , Sony probably made less than Shelter did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RATM song cost a total of 29p on Amazon, so they made a grand total of £145,000 from it.
After Amazon taking a cut and them paying out artist royalties, Sony probably made less than Shelter did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30557440</id>
	<title>Re:X Factor is Criminal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261857660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it is, but Susan Boyle got her fame through Britain's Got Talent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is , but Susan Boyle got her fame through Britain 's Got Talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is, but Susan Boyle got her fame through Britain's Got Talent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512844</id>
	<title>Erm, one small point. Who gives a sh*t?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...about who's at #1?

</p><p>All these Rage fans getting so het up about X-factor being top of the chart. And yet they themselves seem to feel the need to have their music choice validated by everyone else buying the same.

</p><p>The chart is about populist music - by definition. So why complain about X-factor-bots being at the top of it?!?

</p><p>Jeez. Sheeples, all of them. If you like music, buy/listen to it. If not, don't. WTF GAFF about whether all the other people out their bought it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...about who 's at # 1 ?
All these Rage fans getting so het up about X-factor being top of the chart .
And yet they themselves seem to feel the need to have their music choice validated by everyone else buying the same .
The chart is about populist music - by definition .
So why complain about X-factor-bots being at the top of it ? ! ?
Jeez. Sheeples , all of them .
If you like music , buy/listen to it .
If not , do n't .
WTF GAFF about whether all the other people out their bought it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...about who's at #1?
All these Rage fans getting so het up about X-factor being top of the chart.
And yet they themselves seem to feel the need to have their music choice validated by everyone else buying the same.
The chart is about populist music - by definition.
So why complain about X-factor-bots being at the top of it?!?
Jeez. Sheeples, all of them.
If you like music, buy/listen to it.
If not, don't.
WTF GAFF about whether all the other people out their bought it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511168</id>
	<title>Straw man</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261404840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In this case by showing Sony we won't take their crap</i></p><p>And there's your straw man. Everyone else new about Sony long before you - who said it was a campaign against Sony in any way?</p><p>Yes, I agree it shows how silly the charts are, but that itself was part of the point for some of us:</p><p><i>In fact what this shows is that the system WORKS. Hype a song to a group and voila, instant hit.</i></p><p>You're missing the point - yes it played by the same rules, but it did so in a way that was so ludicrious, it becomes obvious how silly it is. A single from 17 years ago? That wasn't even rereleased? That wasn't in the shops? That didn't have any paid for advertising? Yes, suddenly it is apparently how silly it is that an organised campaign can get any song they like to number 1, even at the most difficult week of the year.</p><p>(Also the RATM "system" didn't involve spending large sums of money on marketing, or being accompanied with a TV show watched by millions of viewers, so not really the same.)</p><p><i>Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing, you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song. </i></p><p>Which is a lot harder of course. Feel free to have a go yourself next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case by showing Sony we wo n't take their crapAnd there 's your straw man .
Everyone else new about Sony long before you - who said it was a campaign against Sony in any way ? Yes , I agree it shows how silly the charts are , but that itself was part of the point for some of us : In fact what this shows is that the system WORKS .
Hype a song to a group and voila , instant hit.You 're missing the point - yes it played by the same rules , but it did so in a way that was so ludicrious , it becomes obvious how silly it is .
A single from 17 years ago ?
That was n't even rereleased ?
That was n't in the shops ?
That did n't have any paid for advertising ?
Yes , suddenly it is apparently how silly it is that an organised campaign can get any song they like to number 1 , even at the most difficult week of the year .
( Also the RATM " system " did n't involve spending large sums of money on marketing , or being accompanied with a TV show watched by millions of viewers , so not really the same .
) Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing , you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song .
Which is a lot harder of course .
Feel free to have a go yourself next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case by showing Sony we won't take their crapAnd there's your straw man.
Everyone else new about Sony long before you - who said it was a campaign against Sony in any way?Yes, I agree it shows how silly the charts are, but that itself was part of the point for some of us:In fact what this shows is that the system WORKS.
Hype a song to a group and voila, instant hit.You're missing the point - yes it played by the same rules, but it did so in a way that was so ludicrious, it becomes obvious how silly it is.
A single from 17 years ago?
That wasn't even rereleased?
That wasn't in the shops?
That didn't have any paid for advertising?
Yes, suddenly it is apparently how silly it is that an organised campaign can get any song they like to number 1, even at the most difficult week of the year.
(Also the RATM "system" didn't involve spending large sums of money on marketing, or being accompanied with a TV show watched by millions of viewers, so not really the same.
)Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing, you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song.
Which is a lot harder of course.
Feel free to have a go yourself next year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511794</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Stevecrox</author>
	<datestamp>1261409400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried creating a petition a week ago nothings appeared yet and I can't find one to take its place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried creating a petition a week ago nothings appeared yet and I ca n't find one to take its place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried creating a petition a week ago nothings appeared yet and I can't find one to take its place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510990</id>
	<title>absurd and ironic</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1261402560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the "protest" is apparently against frivolity and capitalism and lack of seriousness of the christmas sales charts</p><p>as if christmas sales charts are anything but a frivolous, capitalistic and thoroughly unserious endeavour. christmas sales charts should always be dominated by x factor, because they deserve each other: completely pointless, unimportant bullshit. taking the idea of christmas sales charts seriously is your first mistake</p><p>ratm going to the top of the sales charts is not a reassertion of what's real, its not a protest against anything. its an equally lightweight air puff exercise taking place within the bubble of completely unimportant bullshit no one serious remotely cares about</p><p>anyone who sees this exercise as powerful or exhilarating has just announced themselves as a creme puff who doesn't have any real issues in their lives</p><p>no one serious fucking cares. its not the real world, its  not a real issue</p><p>meanwhile, in the real world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the " protest " is apparently against frivolity and capitalism and lack of seriousness of the christmas sales chartsas if christmas sales charts are anything but a frivolous , capitalistic and thoroughly unserious endeavour .
christmas sales charts should always be dominated by x factor , because they deserve each other : completely pointless , unimportant bullshit .
taking the idea of christmas sales charts seriously is your first mistakeratm going to the top of the sales charts is not a reassertion of what 's real , its not a protest against anything .
its an equally lightweight air puff exercise taking place within the bubble of completely unimportant bullshit no one serious remotely cares aboutanyone who sees this exercise as powerful or exhilarating has just announced themselves as a creme puff who does n't have any real issues in their livesno one serious fucking cares .
its not the real world , its not a real issuemeanwhile , in the real world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "protest" is apparently against frivolity and capitalism and lack of seriousness of the christmas sales chartsas if christmas sales charts are anything but a frivolous, capitalistic and thoroughly unserious endeavour.
christmas sales charts should always be dominated by x factor, because they deserve each other: completely pointless, unimportant bullshit.
taking the idea of christmas sales charts seriously is your first mistakeratm going to the top of the sales charts is not a reassertion of what's real, its not a protest against anything.
its an equally lightweight air puff exercise taking place within the bubble of completely unimportant bullshit no one serious remotely cares aboutanyone who sees this exercise as powerful or exhilarating has just announced themselves as a creme puff who doesn't have any real issues in their livesno one serious fucking cares.
its not the real world, its  not a real issuemeanwhile, in the real world...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511290</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1261406040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon, or whoever people bought it from, but Amazon was the cheapest, will have to pay for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon , or whoever people bought it from , but Amazon was the cheapest , will have to pay for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon, or whoever people bought it from, but Amazon was the cheapest, will have to pay for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512310</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Organism</author>
	<datestamp>1261412400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.43 terrabytes is peanuts these days. My $50/month dedicated server comes with 10 terrabytes/month transfer. While there are still costs associated with internet distribution, they are thousands of times smaller than for the equivalent physical media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.43 terrabytes is peanuts these days .
My $ 50/month dedicated server comes with 10 terrabytes/month transfer .
While there are still costs associated with internet distribution , they are thousands of times smaller than for the equivalent physical media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.43 terrabytes is peanuts these days.
My $50/month dedicated server comes with 10 terrabytes/month transfer.
While there are still costs associated with internet distribution, they are thousands of times smaller than for the equivalent physical media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511368</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1261406820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Slight nitpick, but although there may have been no materials cost, don't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes (500,000 x 3GB) worth of data that people used to download it.
<br> <br>
It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product, but this is Slashdot and we shouldn't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download doesn't cost anything.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whoops, should be MB and not GB. The maths still work out at 1.43 TB though for 500,000 tracks (assuming a 3MB song).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slight nitpick , but although there may have been no materials cost , do n't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes ( 500,000 x 3GB ) worth of data that people used to download it .
It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product , but this is Slashdot and we should n't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download does n't cost anything.Whoops , should be MB and not GB .
The maths still work out at 1.43 TB though for 500,000 tracks ( assuming a 3MB song ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slight nitpick, but although there may have been no materials cost, don't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes (500,000 x 3GB) worth of data that people used to download it.
It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product, but this is Slashdot and we shouldn't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download doesn't cost anything.Whoops, should be MB and not GB.
The maths still work out at 1.43 TB though for 500,000 tracks (assuming a 3MB song).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511630</id>
	<title>Re:Hoorayyy, or...</title>
	<author>CrackedButter</author>
	<datestamp>1261408440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because of this link, I will be chucking my facebook account come the new year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>because of this link , I will be chucking my facebook account come the new year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because of this link, I will be chucking my facebook account come the new year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512436</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent campaign and choice of song. Congrats from Ireland!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent campaign and choice of song .
Congrats from Ireland !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent campaign and choice of song.
Congrats from Ireland!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516676</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1261389360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Half a million people bought RATM.  The electorate is about ~45 million, and more than half that vote at general elections.  By contrast, there were about 10 million votes cast for the X Factor finals, with voting open to anyone that could manage to press the red button now.

<p>As for Simon Cowell producing a political program, what's the harm?  It's stupid: the prize is five hundred quid for your deposit and (presumably) the services of an election agent.  And they are pretty unlikely to be elected under FPTP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half a million people bought RATM .
The electorate is about ~ 45 million , and more than half that vote at general elections .
By contrast , there were about 10 million votes cast for the X Factor finals , with voting open to anyone that could manage to press the red button now .
As for Simon Cowell producing a political program , what 's the harm ?
It 's stupid : the prize is five hundred quid for your deposit and ( presumably ) the services of an election agent .
And they are pretty unlikely to be elected under FPTP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half a million people bought RATM.
The electorate is about ~45 million, and more than half that vote at general elections.
By contrast, there were about 10 million votes cast for the X Factor finals, with voting open to anyone that could manage to press the red button now.
As for Simon Cowell producing a political program, what's the harm?
It's stupid: the prize is five hundred quid for your deposit and (presumably) the services of an election agent.
And they are pretty unlikely to be elected under FPTP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</id>
	<title>Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK!
<br> <br>
That's like totally horrifying.
<br> <br>
At least protest for a something worthwhile - e.g. against clause 11 of the "Digital Economy Bill"<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html" title="parliament.uk">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html</a> [parliament.uk] Essentially gives Lord Mandelson complete control of what is published on Internet and unrivalled power and "interpretation" of copyright law.
<br>
<br> You can join petitions here: <a href="http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=758" title="number10.gov.uk">http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=758</a> [number10.gov.uk]
<br> <br>
Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236002/The-Politics-Factor-Simon-Cowell-unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236002/The-Politics-Factor-Simon-Cowell-unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]

This mentality scares the crap out of me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK !
That 's like totally horrifying .
At least protest for a something worthwhile - e.g .
against clause 11 of the " Digital Economy Bill " http : //www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html [ parliament.uk ] Essentially gives Lord Mandelson complete control of what is published on Internet and unrivalled power and " interpretation " of copyright law .
You can join petitions here : http : //petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open ? cat = 758 [ number10.gov.uk ] Then again Simon Cowell wants to " X-Factor " politics http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236002/The-Politics-Factor-Simon-Cowell-unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html [ dailymail.co.uk ] This mentality scares the crap out of me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK!
That's like totally horrifying.
At least protest for a something worthwhile - e.g.
against clause 11 of the "Digital Economy Bill"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html [parliament.uk] Essentially gives Lord Mandelson complete control of what is published on Internet and unrivalled power and "interpretation" of copyright law.
You can join petitions here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=758 [number10.gov.uk]
 
Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236002/The-Politics-Factor-Simon-Cowell-unveils-plan-launch-election-debate-show.html [dailymail.co.uk]

This mentality scares the crap out of me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510912</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the three months' free publicity they'd enjoyed from the UK's biggest commercial TV station (and all the media interest that that itself generates).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it 's a drop in the ocean compared to the three months ' free publicity they 'd enjoyed from the UK 's biggest commercial TV station ( and all the media interest that that itself generates ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the three months' free publicity they'd enjoyed from the UK's biggest commercial TV station (and all the media interest that that itself generates).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30521806</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok what?</p><p>First of all a single track isn't 3GB</p><p>Secondly, itunes, amazon etc host the files, not Sony...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok what ? First of all a single track is n't 3GBSecondly , itunes , amazon etc host the files , not Sony.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok what?First of all a single track isn't 3GBSecondly, itunes, amazon etc host the files, not Sony...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30515450</id>
	<title>Merry fscking Christmas!</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1261426380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so,... I get the protest against corporate and mainstream music (Simon Cowell's empire).  Could the guy have at least found an obscure holiday tune?  Heck I'd have just as pleased with BNL's Hannukah song.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so,... I get the protest against corporate and mainstream music ( Simon Cowell 's empire ) .
Could the guy have at least found an obscure holiday tune ?
Heck I 'd have just as pleased with BNL 's Hannukah song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so,... I get the protest against corporate and mainstream music (Simon Cowell's empire).
Could the guy have at least found an obscure holiday tune?
Heck I'd have just as pleased with BNL's Hannukah song.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511896</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because every vote counts, under the first past the post system the majority of votes are wasted. If you broke up the UK sales then rearranged them by region and weighted them by size and population and historical context, it starts getting hard to see where your vote goes and it's hard to really care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because every vote counts , under the first past the post system the majority of votes are wasted .
If you broke up the UK sales then rearranged them by region and weighted them by size and population and historical context , it starts getting hard to see where your vote goes and it 's hard to really care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because every vote counts, under the first past the post system the majority of votes are wasted.
If you broke up the UK sales then rearranged them by region and weighted them by size and population and historical context, it starts getting hard to see where your vote goes and it's hard to really care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511256</id>
	<title>Buying a CD doesn't mean you don't vote</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261405680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no fan of X Factor, but even with 20 million viewers (presumably the number of voters was less than that), the number of people who voted in the 2005 election was still higher. So how do you know that these people don't vote?</p><p>And for the million people who bought either of the singles, clearly the number of voters in elections is far higher.</p><p>Tell me, have you ever bought a single? Or took part in something trivial? Is it therefore valid for me to say "How dare you do that! There are more important things to worry about!"</p><p>I could say the same argument to you here: as much as I find things like the Digital Economy Bill serious, there are still worse things in the world. In fact, people <i>do</i> make those criticisms ("in other countries, people are get murdered, why do you waste your effort on some UK bill?"). And I find it very frustrating. So I find it depressing to see you using the same argument against something in turn more trivial.</p><p>What are you doing posting to Slashdot btw? Aren't there better things to be doing? And why did you pick this story? What about the endless stories we get about various computer or phone products - shouldn't those be dropped to make way for more coverage on important bills?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no fan of X Factor , but even with 20 million viewers ( presumably the number of voters was less than that ) , the number of people who voted in the 2005 election was still higher .
So how do you know that these people do n't vote ? And for the million people who bought either of the singles , clearly the number of voters in elections is far higher.Tell me , have you ever bought a single ?
Or took part in something trivial ?
Is it therefore valid for me to say " How dare you do that !
There are more important things to worry about !
" I could say the same argument to you here : as much as I find things like the Digital Economy Bill serious , there are still worse things in the world .
In fact , people do make those criticisms ( " in other countries , people are get murdered , why do you waste your effort on some UK bill ? " ) .
And I find it very frustrating .
So I find it depressing to see you using the same argument against something in turn more trivial.What are you doing posting to Slashdot btw ?
Are n't there better things to be doing ?
And why did you pick this story ?
What about the endless stories we get about various computer or phone products - should n't those be dropped to make way for more coverage on important bills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no fan of X Factor, but even with 20 million viewers (presumably the number of voters was less than that), the number of people who voted in the 2005 election was still higher.
So how do you know that these people don't vote?And for the million people who bought either of the singles, clearly the number of voters in elections is far higher.Tell me, have you ever bought a single?
Or took part in something trivial?
Is it therefore valid for me to say "How dare you do that!
There are more important things to worry about!
"I could say the same argument to you here: as much as I find things like the Digital Economy Bill serious, there are still worse things in the world.
In fact, people do make those criticisms ("in other countries, people are get murdered, why do you waste your effort on some UK bill?").
And I find it very frustrating.
So I find it depressing to see you using the same argument against something in turn more trivial.What are you doing posting to Slashdot btw?
Aren't there better things to be doing?
And why did you pick this story?
What about the endless stories we get about various computer or phone products - shouldn't those be dropped to make way for more coverage on important bills?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511022</id>
	<title>...AND AAH HOMECOMING QUEEE-EE-EE-EEN...</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1261402980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thank you for thoroughly filling my skull with that madness this morning. thanks a lot &gt;:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thank you for thoroughly filling my skull with that madness this morning .
thanks a lot &gt; : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank you for thoroughly filling my skull with that madness this morning.
thanks a lot &gt;:-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1261398840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Personally, my eyes are now on Sony UK and, to a lesser extent, Simon Cowell. Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track, plus probably a good 100,000 extra copies of McElderry's bought by X-Factor fans to try and keep RATM off number one spot. Total materials cost: &pound;0. I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>Slight nitpick, but although there may have been no materials cost, don't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes (500,000 x 3GB) worth of data that people used to download it.</p><p>It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product, but this is Slashdot and we shouldn't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download doesn't cost anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , my eyes are now on Sony UK and , to a lesser extent , Simon Cowell .
Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track , plus probably a good 100,000 extra copies of McElderry 's bought by X-Factor fans to try and keep RATM off number one spot .
Total materials cost :   0 .
I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.Slight nitpick , but although there may have been no materials cost , do n't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes ( 500,000 x 3GB ) worth of data that people used to download it.It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product , but this is Slashdot and we should n't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download does n't cost anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, my eyes are now on Sony UK and, to a lesser extent, Simon Cowell.
Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track, plus probably a good 100,000 extra copies of McElderry's bought by X-Factor fans to try and keep RATM off number one spot.
Total materials cost: £0.
I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.Slight nitpick, but although there may have been no materials cost, don't forgot that Sony would have had to pay for the 1.43 terrabytes (500,000 x 3GB) worth of data that people used to download it.It may be cheaper than producing and shipping a product, but this is Slashdot and we shouldn't be getting into the mistake of assuming that a digital download doesn't cost anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514022</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1261420080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>wat</p><p>Also the track is 5:14 so it's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode, so ~5TB total transferred, which would cost about $850 from Amazon S3</p></div><p>Damn, one less crate of Cristal at the Sony executives Christmas do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>watAlso the track is 5 : 14 so it 's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode , so ~ 5TB total transferred , which would cost about $ 850 from Amazon S3Damn , one less crate of Cristal at the Sony executives Christmas do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>watAlso the track is 5:14 so it's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode, so ~5TB total transferred, which would cost about $850 from Amazon S3Damn, one less crate of Cristal at the Sony executives Christmas do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510700</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261398600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics</p></div></blockquote><p>That worked so well last time ITV tried it.</p><blockquote><div><p>A innovative attempt to revitalise the public's interest in politics, by subjecting would-be MPs to a Pop Idol-style reality TV show, descended into ugly scenes last night after the winner was accused of holding views to the right of the British National Party.</p></div></blockquote><p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jan/16/broadcasting.raceintheuk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again Simon Cowell wants to " X-Factor " politicsThat worked so well last time ITV tried it.A innovative attempt to revitalise the public 's interest in politics , by subjecting would-be MPs to a Pop Idol-style reality TV show , descended into ugly scenes last night after the winner was accused of holding views to the right of the British National Party.http : //www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jan/16/broadcasting.raceintheuk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politicsThat worked so well last time ITV tried it.A innovative attempt to revitalise the public's interest in politics, by subjecting would-be MPs to a Pop Idol-style reality TV show, descended into ugly scenes last night after the winner was accused of holding views to the right of the British National Party.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jan/16/broadcasting.raceintheuk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510882</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>artg</author>
	<datestamp>1261401000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the Muppets were better, right ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Muppets were better , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Muppets were better, right ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510430</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1261394700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the Xfactor-bot's song sold 100,000 less than last year's winner did, who did secure the Xmas no1 spot. So to say it has increased Cowell's profits is wrong. It was a win-win for Sony though. And the BPI, who saw several hundred thousand people legally download a song for the first time (and paid for it!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the Xfactor-bot 's song sold 100,000 less than last year 's winner did , who did secure the Xmas no1 spot .
So to say it has increased Cowell 's profits is wrong .
It was a win-win for Sony though .
And the BPI , who saw several hundred thousand people legally download a song for the first time ( and paid for it !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the Xfactor-bot's song sold 100,000 less than last year's winner did, who did secure the Xmas no1 spot.
So to say it has increased Cowell's profits is wrong.
It was a win-win for Sony though.
And the BPI, who saw several hundred thousand people legally download a song for the first time (and paid for it!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511518</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also the track is 5:14 so it's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode, so ~5TB total transferred, which would cost about $850 from Amazon S3</p></div></blockquote><p>They could have reduced their costs; just let people download the 3 lyrics in the song, then loop it back up to 5:14.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also the track is 5 : 14 so it 's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode , so ~ 5TB total transferred , which would cost about $ 850 from Amazon S3They could have reduced their costs ; just let people download the 3 lyrics in the song , then loop it back up to 5 : 14 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also the track is 5:14 so it's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode, so ~5TB total transferred, which would cost about $850 from Amazon S3They could have reduced their costs; just let people download the 3 lyrics in the song, then loop it back up to 5:14.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513862</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose is not stated</title>
	<author>kingosric</author>
	<datestamp>1261419480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and the outlay was 29 pence</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sorry, that didn't count. <a href="http://www.theofficialcharts.com/docs/Official\%20UK\%20Singles\%20Chart\%20Rules\%20August\%202009.pdf" title="theofficialcharts.com" rel="nofollow">UK chart company</a> [theofficialcharts.com] say that you have to pay at least 40p for them to count it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the outlay was 29 pence Sorry , that did n't count .
UK chart company [ theofficialcharts.com ] say that you have to pay at least 40p for them to count it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the outlay was 29 pence

Sorry, that didn't count.
UK chart company [theofficialcharts.com] say that you have to pay at least 40p for them to count it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510598</id>
	<title>Not the first number one on downloads at all</title>
	<author>R0UTE</author>
	<datestamp>1261397100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK</p></div><p>

Umm, no it isn't. Crazy by Gnarles Barkley was the first song to reach number one in the UK on downloads alone. This was the first song to be the Christmas number 1 on downloads alone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK Umm , no it is n't .
Crazy by Gnarles Barkley was the first song to reach number one in the UK on downloads alone .
This was the first song to be the Christmas number 1 on downloads alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK

Umm, no it isn't.
Crazy by Gnarles Barkley was the first song to reach number one in the UK on downloads alone.
This was the first song to be the Christmas number 1 on downloads alone.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510934</id>
	<title>Grassroots or "grassroots" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real grassroots effort or just marketing astroturfing that tricked everyone?<br>Maybe it was just a "grassroots effort", not real.</p><p>Then everyone go buy something, and they get profit?</p><p>I don't like people tell me to buy something.<br>"Buy this, just to piss of X-Factor", eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real grassroots effort or just marketing astroturfing that tricked everyone ? Maybe it was just a " grassroots effort " , not real.Then everyone go buy something , and they get profit ? I do n't like people tell me to buy something .
" Buy this , just to piss of X-Factor " , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real grassroots effort or just marketing astroturfing that tricked everyone?Maybe it was just a "grassroots effort", not real.Then everyone go buy something, and they get profit?I don't like people tell me to buy something.
"Buy this, just to piss of X-Factor", eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510528</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1261396380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I don't watch the news, who is in power makes zero impact on my life. Government is ossified, changeless, and (I think) relatively powerless. Music, on the other hand, does play a role in my day to day life. You hear it everywhere. If I can hear "Killing in the Name" instead of that awful pop-idol shit several times a day over christmas, well that's a difference I'm interested in making!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I do n't watch the news , who is in power makes zero impact on my life .
Government is ossified , changeless , and ( I think ) relatively powerless .
Music , on the other hand , does play a role in my day to day life .
You hear it everywhere .
If I can hear " Killing in the Name " instead of that awful pop-idol shit several times a day over christmas , well that 's a difference I 'm interested in making !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I don't watch the news, who is in power makes zero impact on my life.
Government is ossified, changeless, and (I think) relatively powerless.
Music, on the other hand, does play a role in my day to day life.
You hear it everywhere.
If I can hear "Killing in the Name" instead of that awful pop-idol shit several times a day over christmas, well that's a difference I'm interested in making!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im in the UK and I bought 6 copies of Killing in the Name. It was not about "sticking it to the man"(I'm 37 for christ's sake). Nor do I give two shits that Sony is making money off of it. I don;t give a fuck what Simon Cowell thinks of anything. I just wanted Killing in the Name to be number one at christmas. I wanted something other than the bland, synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years. This is not a political statment. Please try to understand that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im in the UK and I bought 6 copies of Killing in the Name .
It was not about " sticking it to the man " ( I 'm 37 for christ 's sake ) .
Nor do I give two shits that Sony is making money off of it .
I don ; t give a fuck what Simon Cowell thinks of anything .
I just wanted Killing in the Name to be number one at christmas .
I wanted something other than the bland , synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years .
This is not a political statment .
Please try to understand that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im in the UK and I bought 6 copies of Killing in the Name.
It was not about "sticking it to the man"(I'm 37 for christ's sake).
Nor do I give two shits that Sony is making money off of it.
I don;t give a fuck what Simon Cowell thinks of anything.
I just wanted Killing in the Name to be number one at christmas.
I wanted something other than the bland, synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years.
This is not a political statment.
Please try to understand that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516002</id>
	<title>Sony BMG beats Sony BMG</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1261386000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following one of the biggest battles in the history of the UK Singles Chart, <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2009/12/21/sony-bmg-beats-sony-bmg-to-christmas-number-one/" title="newstechnica.com">Sony BMG have beaten Sony BMG</a> [newstechnica.com] to achieve the UK's official Christmas number one.</p><p>Artists signed to the label have taken the festive top spot for four years in a row. A Facebook campaign backing the record company aimed to stop another song on the label reaching the Christmas number one spot once again.</p><p>Sony BMG-signed guitarist Tom Morello said the campaign had "tapped into the silent majority of the people in the UK who are tired of being spoon-fed one schmaltzy ballad after another" and who can now buy a vastly superior download of insubstantial computerised bits and bytes from the same company. "They're taking a stand against mindless music by buying it like they were told to."</p><p>He said their victory looked back to such great Sony BMG artists as the Clash, as opposed to those EMI sellouts the Sex Pistols. "It's like when Bill Clinton got to the White House and they played Fleetwood Mac. It said 'We've made it.' Man. The young people of today must be so excited!"</p><p>Meanwhile, free downloads continued to increase in line with Moore's Law and the growth of live music as opposed to canned. Sony BMG's victory remained news for almost three hours before this week's inexplicable second-string celebrity heart attack took over Twitter and everyone proclaimed how they'd always loved whoever it was. Simon Cowell has tipped Finland's Lordi as hot prospects for next year's X-Factor. Next year's Facebook campaign will be to get this year's Joe McElderry single to number one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following one of the biggest battles in the history of the UK Singles Chart , Sony BMG have beaten Sony BMG [ newstechnica.com ] to achieve the UK 's official Christmas number one.Artists signed to the label have taken the festive top spot for four years in a row .
A Facebook campaign backing the record company aimed to stop another song on the label reaching the Christmas number one spot once again.Sony BMG-signed guitarist Tom Morello said the campaign had " tapped into the silent majority of the people in the UK who are tired of being spoon-fed one schmaltzy ballad after another " and who can now buy a vastly superior download of insubstantial computerised bits and bytes from the same company .
" They 're taking a stand against mindless music by buying it like they were told to .
" He said their victory looked back to such great Sony BMG artists as the Clash , as opposed to those EMI sellouts the Sex Pistols .
" It 's like when Bill Clinton got to the White House and they played Fleetwood Mac .
It said 'We 've made it .
' Man .
The young people of today must be so excited !
" Meanwhile , free downloads continued to increase in line with Moore 's Law and the growth of live music as opposed to canned .
Sony BMG 's victory remained news for almost three hours before this week 's inexplicable second-string celebrity heart attack took over Twitter and everyone proclaimed how they 'd always loved whoever it was .
Simon Cowell has tipped Finland 's Lordi as hot prospects for next year 's X-Factor .
Next year 's Facebook campaign will be to get this year 's Joe McElderry single to number one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following one of the biggest battles in the history of the UK Singles Chart, Sony BMG have beaten Sony BMG [newstechnica.com] to achieve the UK's official Christmas number one.Artists signed to the label have taken the festive top spot for four years in a row.
A Facebook campaign backing the record company aimed to stop another song on the label reaching the Christmas number one spot once again.Sony BMG-signed guitarist Tom Morello said the campaign had "tapped into the silent majority of the people in the UK who are tired of being spoon-fed one schmaltzy ballad after another" and who can now buy a vastly superior download of insubstantial computerised bits and bytes from the same company.
"They're taking a stand against mindless music by buying it like they were told to.
"He said their victory looked back to such great Sony BMG artists as the Clash, as opposed to those EMI sellouts the Sex Pistols.
"It's like when Bill Clinton got to the White House and they played Fleetwood Mac.
It said 'We've made it.
' Man.
The young people of today must be so excited!
"Meanwhile, free downloads continued to increase in line with Moore's Law and the growth of live music as opposed to canned.
Sony BMG's victory remained news for almost three hours before this week's inexplicable second-string celebrity heart attack took over Twitter and everyone proclaimed how they'd always loved whoever it was.
Simon Cowell has tipped Finland's Lordi as hot prospects for next year's X-Factor.
Next year's Facebook campaign will be to get this year's Joe McElderry single to number one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512574</id>
	<title>They should make a Christmas version of the song</title>
	<author>Bearded Frog</author>
	<datestamp>1261413780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aka "Killing in the name of... christmas"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aka " Killing in the name of... christmas "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aka "Killing in the name of... christmas"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511720</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1261408980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do Christmas trees matter?<br>Why does tinsel and fairy lights matter?<br>Why does Morecambe and Wise / Only Fools and Horses / Other christmas specials matter?<br>Why does the Queen's speech matter?<br>Why do Christmas crackers and party hats and Christmas pudding matter?</p><p>It's all just part of many British people's Christmas traditions. Things that make people feel good this time of year. Not important in the grand scheme of things. But important enough to care and to spend modest amounts of money on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do Christmas trees matter ? Why does tinsel and fairy lights matter ? Why does Morecambe and Wise / Only Fools and Horses / Other christmas specials matter ? Why does the Queen 's speech matter ? Why do Christmas crackers and party hats and Christmas pudding matter ? It 's all just part of many British people 's Christmas traditions .
Things that make people feel good this time of year .
Not important in the grand scheme of things .
But important enough to care and to spend modest amounts of money on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do Christmas trees matter?Why does tinsel and fairy lights matter?Why does Morecambe and Wise / Only Fools and Horses / Other christmas specials matter?Why does the Queen's speech matter?Why do Christmas crackers and party hats and Christmas pudding matter?It's all just part of many British people's Christmas traditions.
Things that make people feel good this time of year.
Not important in the grand scheme of things.
But important enough to care and to spend modest amounts of money on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510330</id>
	<title>Hoorayyy, or...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More money for RIAA, thanks facebook!</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY SHIT, OK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More money for RIAA , thanks facebook ! http : //www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook [ guardian.co.uk ] YOU DO N'T HAVE TO BUY SHIT , OK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More money for RIAA, thanks facebook!http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook [guardian.co.uk]YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY SHIT, OK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510466</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261395180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't vote or get involved with politics because they don't feel they can make a difference.</p><p>OK, it may be a trivial subject, but if you want to show people that you can make a difference if you actually take part, this is a great way of showing them.</p><p>The X-Factor was expected to get number 1 with no competition, but some people decided to do something about it. It resonated with a lot of people and they decided to take part and join in. It snowballed and eventually almost a million people (granted, some of them probably aren't British) joined the group.</p><p>With a general election less than six months away, what better way to educate people that they can make a difference if they stand up and be counted (and vote).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't vote or get involved with politics because they do n't feel they can make a difference.OK , it may be a trivial subject , but if you want to show people that you can make a difference if you actually take part , this is a great way of showing them.The X-Factor was expected to get number 1 with no competition , but some people decided to do something about it .
It resonated with a lot of people and they decided to take part and join in .
It snowballed and eventually almost a million people ( granted , some of them probably are n't British ) joined the group.With a general election less than six months away , what better way to educate people that they can make a difference if they stand up and be counted ( and vote ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't vote or get involved with politics because they don't feel they can make a difference.OK, it may be a trivial subject, but if you want to show people that you can make a difference if you actually take part, this is a great way of showing them.The X-Factor was expected to get number 1 with no competition, but some people decided to do something about it.
It resonated with a lot of people and they decided to take part and join in.
It snowballed and eventually almost a million people (granted, some of them probably aren't British) joined the group.With a general election less than six months away, what better way to educate people that they can make a difference if they stand up and be counted (and vote).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511128</id>
	<title>Why did this not work for the Hoff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the brilliant plan to get the Hoff to number one a few years ago (http://www.gethasselhofftonumber1.com/).</p><p>The plan was that everyone signed up and was suppose to go out and buy the Hoffs new single the same week to get it to number 1. Unfortunatly he only got to number 2, beaten by Razorlight - America....</p><p>Even though I hate X-Factor and would love to see the singal fail it dissapoints me a bit that they managed to pull this off but the hoff couldnt...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the brilliant plan to get the Hoff to number one a few years ago ( http : //www.gethasselhofftonumber1.com/ ) .The plan was that everyone signed up and was suppose to go out and buy the Hoffs new single the same week to get it to number 1 .
Unfortunatly he only got to number 2 , beaten by Razorlight - America....Even though I hate X-Factor and would love to see the singal fail it dissapoints me a bit that they managed to pull this off but the hoff couldnt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the brilliant plan to get the Hoff to number one a few years ago (http://www.gethasselhofftonumber1.com/).The plan was that everyone signed up and was suppose to go out and buy the Hoffs new single the same week to get it to number 1.
Unfortunatly he only got to number 2, beaten by Razorlight - America....Even though I hate X-Factor and would love to see the singal fail it dissapoints me a bit that they managed to pull this off but the hoff couldnt...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514530</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261422420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can petition, but we can't actually vote on that.</p><p>We can protest - I'm actually a member of the Pirate Party UK, so I'm not exactly sitting on my laurels - but it's fairly clear Sith Lord Mandelson doesn't give a crap about what anyone thinks, because he doesn't <i>have</i> to give a crap about what anyone thinks anymore (unless they treat him to lunch in the Rothschilds mansion - then he's all ears!).</p><p>And it's not just clause 11. Be careful; that's a classic political maneuver, putting in a bit that's worst than all the rest, so you focus on that and celebrate when it gets taken out, notwithstanding all the rest of the crap in there. The "false compromise" is the oldest political dirty trick in the book; don't fall for it.</p><p>Frankly, the entire Digital Economy Bill is a stinking heap of shit; a naked power-grab throwing the consultation in Lord Carter's much more balanced and thought-out "Digital Britain" report in the bin, going against most of the industry advice, essentially trying to make the law at the whim of one man (David Geffen).</p><p>None of the general public voted for Mandelson to attain his current position (indeed, wasn't he kicked out of Parliament for sleaze?); none of the general public voted for the current Prime Minister, either. This isn't democracy, this is autocracy. This is essentially a bill enacting the text of the secret ACTA treaty before the ink on the draft treaty is even dry, and it smells just as bad.</p><p>Most of the ISPs (via the ISPA) are furious about it. I can only hope the opposition parties will torpedo the bill by pushing the debate past the election, for the public good, as they have indicated they would with several of the terrible "sunset" bills in this New Labour government's most-likely-last Queen's Speech.</p><p>There's a total lack of consultation, a total lack of balance and even-handedness, and a total lack of democracy surrounding the whole thing. Don't just argue against one clause. Kill the bill. It's totally inappropriate, draconian, autocratic legislation to put before a Parliament with a General Election looming and no time left really to debate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can petition , but we ca n't actually vote on that.We can protest - I 'm actually a member of the Pirate Party UK , so I 'm not exactly sitting on my laurels - but it 's fairly clear Sith Lord Mandelson does n't give a crap about what anyone thinks , because he does n't have to give a crap about what anyone thinks anymore ( unless they treat him to lunch in the Rothschilds mansion - then he 's all ears !
) .And it 's not just clause 11 .
Be careful ; that 's a classic political maneuver , putting in a bit that 's worst than all the rest , so you focus on that and celebrate when it gets taken out , notwithstanding all the rest of the crap in there .
The " false compromise " is the oldest political dirty trick in the book ; do n't fall for it.Frankly , the entire Digital Economy Bill is a stinking heap of shit ; a naked power-grab throwing the consultation in Lord Carter 's much more balanced and thought-out " Digital Britain " report in the bin , going against most of the industry advice , essentially trying to make the law at the whim of one man ( David Geffen ) .None of the general public voted for Mandelson to attain his current position ( indeed , was n't he kicked out of Parliament for sleaze ?
) ; none of the general public voted for the current Prime Minister , either .
This is n't democracy , this is autocracy .
This is essentially a bill enacting the text of the secret ACTA treaty before the ink on the draft treaty is even dry , and it smells just as bad.Most of the ISPs ( via the ISPA ) are furious about it .
I can only hope the opposition parties will torpedo the bill by pushing the debate past the election , for the public good , as they have indicated they would with several of the terrible " sunset " bills in this New Labour government 's most-likely-last Queen 's Speech.There 's a total lack of consultation , a total lack of balance and even-handedness , and a total lack of democracy surrounding the whole thing .
Do n't just argue against one clause .
Kill the bill .
It 's totally inappropriate , draconian , autocratic legislation to put before a Parliament with a General Election looming and no time left really to debate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can petition, but we can't actually vote on that.We can protest - I'm actually a member of the Pirate Party UK, so I'm not exactly sitting on my laurels - but it's fairly clear Sith Lord Mandelson doesn't give a crap about what anyone thinks, because he doesn't have to give a crap about what anyone thinks anymore (unless they treat him to lunch in the Rothschilds mansion - then he's all ears!
).And it's not just clause 11.
Be careful; that's a classic political maneuver, putting in a bit that's worst than all the rest, so you focus on that and celebrate when it gets taken out, notwithstanding all the rest of the crap in there.
The "false compromise" is the oldest political dirty trick in the book; don't fall for it.Frankly, the entire Digital Economy Bill is a stinking heap of shit; a naked power-grab throwing the consultation in Lord Carter's much more balanced and thought-out "Digital Britain" report in the bin, going against most of the industry advice, essentially trying to make the law at the whim of one man (David Geffen).None of the general public voted for Mandelson to attain his current position (indeed, wasn't he kicked out of Parliament for sleaze?
); none of the general public voted for the current Prime Minister, either.
This isn't democracy, this is autocracy.
This is essentially a bill enacting the text of the secret ACTA treaty before the ink on the draft treaty is even dry, and it smells just as bad.Most of the ISPs (via the ISPA) are furious about it.
I can only hope the opposition parties will torpedo the bill by pushing the debate past the election, for the public good, as they have indicated they would with several of the terrible "sunset" bills in this New Labour government's most-likely-last Queen's Speech.There's a total lack of consultation, a total lack of balance and even-handedness, and a total lack of democracy surrounding the whole thing.
Don't just argue against one clause.
Kill the bill.
It's totally inappropriate, draconian, autocratic legislation to put before a Parliament with a General Election looming and no time left really to debate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511754</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. A whole 1.5TB of data transferred in a week. How ever shall they cope?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
A whole 1.5TB of data transferred in a week .
How ever shall they cope ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
A whole 1.5TB of data transferred in a week.
How ever shall they cope?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512530</id>
	<title>They aren't just signed to the same label</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cowell has business interests with Sony BMG (the label in question) going back many years. He has sold several labels to Sony and signed a contract with them as recently as 2005, maybe more recently.</p><p>If you are taken in by the play acting, you are a mug. Cowell and the Sony BMG executives must be laughing their heads off at you suckers. Just 5\% goes to the artist - if they are lucky. The rest goes to the distributors, the retailer and the label.</p><p>Get off your fat arse, switch the television off, and do something worthwhile. Don't bother replying. I'll be up and gone long before you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cowell has business interests with Sony BMG ( the label in question ) going back many years .
He has sold several labels to Sony and signed a contract with them as recently as 2005 , maybe more recently.If you are taken in by the play acting , you are a mug .
Cowell and the Sony BMG executives must be laughing their heads off at you suckers .
Just 5 \ % goes to the artist - if they are lucky .
The rest goes to the distributors , the retailer and the label.Get off your fat arse , switch the television off , and do something worthwhile .
Do n't bother replying .
I 'll be up and gone long before you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cowell has business interests with Sony BMG (the label in question) going back many years.
He has sold several labels to Sony and signed a contract with them as recently as 2005, maybe more recently.If you are taken in by the play acting, you are a mug.
Cowell and the Sony BMG executives must be laughing their heads off at you suckers.
Just 5\% goes to the artist - if they are lucky.
The rest goes to the distributors, the retailer and the label.Get off your fat arse, switch the television off, and do something worthwhile.
Don't bother replying.
I'll be up and gone long before you do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510604</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, all this shows is how silly charts ar</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1261397160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing, you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song.</p></div><p>And just how the fuck would you do that? You can't prevent the people that like x-factor one hit wonder buying the single because THEY LIKE IT. They aren't going to protest it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing , you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song.And just how the fuck would you do that ?
You ca n't prevent the people that like x-factor one hit wonder buying the single because THEY LIKE IT .
They are n't going to protest it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing, you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song.And just how the fuck would you do that?
You can't prevent the people that like x-factor one hit wonder buying the single because THEY LIKE IT.
They aren't going to protest it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516732</id>
	<title>Re:Erm, one small point. Who gives a sh*t?</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1261389600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Music psychology textbook.  Read one.  Renders these debates tedious.  I recommend "The Child As Musician", Gary MacPherson (ed.).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music psychology textbook .
Read one .
Renders these debates tedious .
I recommend " The Child As Musician " , Gary MacPherson ( ed .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music psychology textbook.
Read one.
Renders these debates tedious.
I recommend "The Child As Musician", Gary MacPherson (ed.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511952</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>uglyduckling</author>
	<datestamp>1261410240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does it matter who wins the Superbowl?  It's just a medium-/longstanding tradition to get excited about which song is the most popular at Christmas.  Prior to the mid-1950s that was determined by sales on sheet music, since then by sales of recorded music, and most recently digitally downloaded music has formed parrt of those sales charts.  It's the song you're going to hear ad nauseum in every supermarket, bar and living room for the next two weeks of holidays, so part of the aim of this campaign was to choose a song that most 'mainstream' people really wouldn't want to hear (and, interestingly, a song whose message is actually quite important if you understand it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it matter who wins the Superbowl ?
It 's just a medium-/longstanding tradition to get excited about which song is the most popular at Christmas .
Prior to the mid-1950s that was determined by sales on sheet music , since then by sales of recorded music , and most recently digitally downloaded music has formed parrt of those sales charts .
It 's the song you 're going to hear ad nauseum in every supermarket , bar and living room for the next two weeks of holidays , so part of the aim of this campaign was to choose a song that most 'mainstream ' people really would n't want to hear ( and , interestingly , a song whose message is actually quite important if you understand it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it matter who wins the Superbowl?
It's just a medium-/longstanding tradition to get excited about which song is the most popular at Christmas.
Prior to the mid-1950s that was determined by sales on sheet music, since then by sales of recorded music, and most recently digitally downloaded music has formed parrt of those sales charts.
It's the song you're going to hear ad nauseum in every supermarket, bar and living room for the next two weeks of holidays, so part of the aim of this campaign was to choose a song that most 'mainstream' people really wouldn't want to hear (and, interestingly, a song whose message is actually quite important if you understand it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206</id>
	<title>Astroturf</title>
	<author>Bertie</author>
	<datestamp>1261405200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dig a little.</p><p>The campaign set up a <a href="http://www.ragefactor.co.uk/" title="ragefactor.co.uk" rel="nofollow">website</a> [ragefactor.co.uk].</p><p>This site is registered in the name of a Mr. Neill Ridley, founder of a little PR firm called Eject Media.</p><p>By a curious coincidence, Neill Ridley used to be an A&amp;R man at... Sony.</p><p>Guess who he worked with there?  Oh, look, it's Simon Cowell...</p><p><a href="http://www.2-4-7-music.com/news/news-story.asp?ID=2840" title="2-4-7-music.com" rel="nofollow">More here.</a> [2-4-7-music.com]</p><p>They deliberately chose that band and that song to give themselves a good laugh at the general public.  "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"?  Looks like you just did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dig a little.The campaign set up a website [ ragefactor.co.uk ] .This site is registered in the name of a Mr. Neill Ridley , founder of a little PR firm called Eject Media.By a curious coincidence , Neill Ridley used to be an A&amp;R man at... Sony.Guess who he worked with there ?
Oh , look , it 's Simon Cowell...More here .
[ 2-4-7-music.com ] They deliberately chose that band and that song to give themselves a good laugh at the general public .
" Fuck you , I wo n't do what you tell me " ?
Looks like you just did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dig a little.The campaign set up a website [ragefactor.co.uk].This site is registered in the name of a Mr. Neill Ridley, founder of a little PR firm called Eject Media.By a curious coincidence, Neill Ridley used to be an A&amp;R man at... Sony.Guess who he worked with there?
Oh, look, it's Simon Cowell...More here.
[2-4-7-music.com]They deliberately chose that band and that song to give themselves a good laugh at the general public.
"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"?
Looks like you just did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230</id>
	<title>Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261392180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And RATM are giving the proceeds to Shelter too, good for them:<br>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>And RATM are giving the proceeds to Shelter too , good for them : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And RATM are giving the proceeds to Shelter too, good for them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8423340.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510708</id>
	<title>Like Syco really care</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1261398660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like the X-factor winner's song sold badly.  A song that gets to number 2 has made incredible profits.  And it's unlikely that RATM displace many sales.   The facebook campaign has made huge profits for both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like the X-factor winner 's song sold badly .
A song that gets to number 2 has made incredible profits .
And it 's unlikely that RATM displace many sales .
The facebook campaign has made huge profits for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like the X-factor winner's song sold badly.
A song that gets to number 2 has made incredible profits.
And it's unlikely that RATM displace many sales.
The facebook campaign has made huge profits for both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513282</id>
	<title>Re:Still a big fail</title>
	<author>kaiidth</author>
	<datestamp>1261416900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this.</p><p>The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid, so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against, you just helped get more sales.</p></div><p>No, the pretty big fail here is coming from you, who have not read the many comments before yours that clearly state that they are not signed to the <i>exact</i> same label.</p><blockquote><div><p>Rage is signed to Epic. The X-Factor dude is signed to Syco. Both labels are subdivisions of Sony/BMG</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not a minor detail, dude. In fact, that's a pretty big fail there kids...</p><p>They are merely both signed to labels that are, ultimately, owned by Sony. And so what, unless you think all of us should be refusing to buy Sony E-Readers, games consoles and IP on the basis that Simon Cowell benefits by association?</p><p>This is not ultimately about protesting against a label. It's not even about the rat Cowell, although I'm sure he'd like to believe otherwise. It is about schadenfreude, personal preference, and the cheap laugh of getting a good, loud, totally politically incorrect song containing seventeen uses of the word 'fuck' on the Christmas charts where everybody's granny might hear it. Where the label, despite benefitting financially, do not particularly want it to be seen. If you think that the charts aren't managed as carefully as any other prime storefront placement, then you're an optimist.</p><p>There's an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/20/joe-mcelderry-rage-against-machine?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:f5f36655-494e-415f-afef-423732e12e34" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">interesting take on what Sony's view of this might be</a> [guardian.co.uk] in the comments of this (dreadful) Guardian article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this.The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid , so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against , you just helped get more sales.No , the pretty big fail here is coming from you , who have not read the many comments before yours that clearly state that they are not signed to the exact same label.Rage is signed to Epic .
The X-Factor dude is signed to Syco .
Both labels are subdivisions of Sony/BMGThat 's not a minor detail , dude .
In fact , that 's a pretty big fail there kids...They are merely both signed to labels that are , ultimately , owned by Sony .
And so what , unless you think all of us should be refusing to buy Sony E-Readers , games consoles and IP on the basis that Simon Cowell benefits by association ? This is not ultimately about protesting against a label .
It 's not even about the rat Cowell , although I 'm sure he 'd like to believe otherwise .
It is about schadenfreude , personal preference , and the cheap laugh of getting a good , loud , totally politically incorrect song containing seventeen uses of the word 'fuck ' on the Christmas charts where everybody 's granny might hear it .
Where the label , despite benefitting financially , do not particularly want it to be seen .
If you think that the charts are n't managed as carefully as any other prime storefront placement , then you 're an optimist.There 's an interesting take on what Sony 's view of this might be [ guardian.co.uk ] in the comments of this ( dreadful ) Guardian article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this.The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid, so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against, you just helped get more sales.No, the pretty big fail here is coming from you, who have not read the many comments before yours that clearly state that they are not signed to the exact same label.Rage is signed to Epic.
The X-Factor dude is signed to Syco.
Both labels are subdivisions of Sony/BMGThat's not a minor detail, dude.
In fact, that's a pretty big fail there kids...They are merely both signed to labels that are, ultimately, owned by Sony.
And so what, unless you think all of us should be refusing to buy Sony E-Readers, games consoles and IP on the basis that Simon Cowell benefits by association?This is not ultimately about protesting against a label.
It's not even about the rat Cowell, although I'm sure he'd like to believe otherwise.
It is about schadenfreude, personal preference, and the cheap laugh of getting a good, loud, totally politically incorrect song containing seventeen uses of the word 'fuck' on the Christmas charts where everybody's granny might hear it.
Where the label, despite benefitting financially, do not particularly want it to be seen.
If you think that the charts aren't managed as carefully as any other prime storefront placement, then you're an optimist.There's an interesting take on what Sony's view of this might be [guardian.co.uk] in the comments of this (dreadful) Guardian article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384</id>
	<title>Actually, all this shows is how silly charts are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It ain't all that hard to upset the charts, it has been done in Holland by "One Day Fly" a comedian and his palls released a song with the clear published goal of getting it on one. And they did.
</p><p>If you count the actual sales that make up the charts it doesn't take much of a group to make an impact.
</p><p>And people really like this idea that they are upsetting the powers that be. In this case by showing Sony we won't take their crap, by buying their crap (check the parent label for both bands). In fact what this shows is that the system WORKS. Hype a song to a group and voila, instant hit. RATM is no different then X-Factor in that respect, both are fakes who just fake it to a slightly different audience but are now proven to be manipulated the same way.
</p><p>Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing, you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song. Because for Sony, the profits are still the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ai n't all that hard to upset the charts , it has been done in Holland by " One Day Fly " a comedian and his palls released a song with the clear published goal of getting it on one .
And they did .
If you count the actual sales that make up the charts it does n't take much of a group to make an impact .
And people really like this idea that they are upsetting the powers that be .
In this case by showing Sony we wo n't take their crap , by buying their crap ( check the parent label for both bands ) .
In fact what this shows is that the system WORKS .
Hype a song to a group and voila , instant hit .
RATM is no different then X-Factor in that respect , both are fakes who just fake it to a slightly different audience but are now proven to be manipulated the same way .
Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing , you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song .
Because for Sony , the profits are still the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It ain't all that hard to upset the charts, it has been done in Holland by "One Day Fly" a comedian and his palls released a song with the clear published goal of getting it on one.
And they did.
If you count the actual sales that make up the charts it doesn't take much of a group to make an impact.
And people really like this idea that they are upsetting the powers that be.
In this case by showing Sony we won't take their crap, by buying their crap (check the parent label for both bands).
In fact what this shows is that the system WORKS.
Hype a song to a group and voila, instant hit.
RATM is no different then X-Factor in that respect, both are fakes who just fake it to a slightly different audience but are now proven to be manipulated the same way.
Now if you REALLY wanted to show you could change mass marketing, you would have gotten NOBODY to buy ANY song.
Because for Sony, the profits are still the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513232</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1261416600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past, at least in the 1980's it was more or less the track that captured the mood of the population at the time (The Human League, The Flying Pickets, Queen, Pink Floyd).</p><p>Then Cliff Richard kept trying to make the Christmas No.1 each year. It wouldn't have been so bad if he had been publishing songs throughout the year, but by only releasing one song each year, it seemed as if he was skulking in his mansion for 11 months, waiting for Christmas. This became so repetitive that the BBC actually banned his songs from Radio 1.</p><p>There was the occasional Band Aid song, but constantly having the winner from X-Factor for five years in a row does become rather tedious.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Christmas\_number\_one\_singles\_(UK)" title="wikipedia.org">List of UK Christmas No.1's</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past , at least in the 1980 's it was more or less the track that captured the mood of the population at the time ( The Human League , The Flying Pickets , Queen , Pink Floyd ) .Then Cliff Richard kept trying to make the Christmas No.1 each year .
It would n't have been so bad if he had been publishing songs throughout the year , but by only releasing one song each year , it seemed as if he was skulking in his mansion for 11 months , waiting for Christmas .
This became so repetitive that the BBC actually banned his songs from Radio 1.There was the occasional Band Aid song , but constantly having the winner from X-Factor for five years in a row does become rather tedious.List of UK Christmas No.1 's [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past, at least in the 1980's it was more or less the track that captured the mood of the population at the time (The Human League, The Flying Pickets, Queen, Pink Floyd).Then Cliff Richard kept trying to make the Christmas No.1 each year.
It wouldn't have been so bad if he had been publishing songs throughout the year, but by only releasing one song each year, it seemed as if he was skulking in his mansion for 11 months, waiting for Christmas.
This became so repetitive that the BBC actually banned his songs from Radio 1.There was the occasional Band Aid song, but constantly having the winner from X-Factor for five years in a row does become rather tedious.List of UK Christmas No.1's [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510758</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261399260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK!</p></div><p>The simple reason is with your X-Factor vote you have a chance at influencing the outcome.</p><p>You cant vote against Darth Mandelson. You cant vote to change the Bill. It is not yet election time, so your only Parliamentary voice (who will barely understand what the internets is) doesnt give a flying shit what us little people think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK ! The simple reason is with your X-Factor vote you have a chance at influencing the outcome.You cant vote against Darth Mandelson .
You cant vote to change the Bill .
It is not yet election time , so your only Parliamentary voice ( who will barely understand what the internets is ) doesnt give a flying shit what us little people think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am amazed that so many people are willing to vote for X-Factor and who should be no1 in the Christmas charts but will not vote for who runs the UK!The simple reason is with your X-Factor vote you have a chance at influencing the outcome.You cant vote against Darth Mandelson.
You cant vote to change the Bill.
It is not yet election time, so your only Parliamentary voice (who will barely understand what the internets is) doesnt give a flying shit what us little people think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512000</id>
	<title>Re:Astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it not make sense if you were a PR man at Sony and saw the RATM campaign that you would build a quick site? Just because Sony got involved at some point along the line doesn't indicate it isn't a genuine grass roots campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it not make sense if you were a PR man at Sony and saw the RATM campaign that you would build a quick site ?
Just because Sony got involved at some point along the line does n't indicate it is n't a genuine grass roots campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it not make sense if you were a PR man at Sony and saw the RATM campaign that you would build a quick site?
Just because Sony got involved at some point along the line doesn't indicate it isn't a genuine grass roots campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511548</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1261407840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does it matter?</p></div><p>Insofar as selling more singles than anyone else, during an arbitrarily(*) decided time period is important...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... more singles are sold in the week leading up to Christmas than any other week - gifts, parties etc. - so it's the week with the most competition. You wouldn't choose to release a single that week, unless you thought it was very strong.</p><p>Downloads throw the equation out by quite a bit though. As has been demonstrated, a track doesn't need a "release" to sell.</p><p>Without a "campaign", Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" is high in the UK charts, purely because Joe McXFactor performed it a couple of times on the show. Or maybe because of Family Guy...</p><p>(*) Unless you believe in Jewish/Christian God</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it matter ? Insofar as selling more singles than anyone else , during an arbitrarily ( * ) decided time period is important... ... more singles are sold in the week leading up to Christmas than any other week - gifts , parties etc .
- so it 's the week with the most competition .
You would n't choose to release a single that week , unless you thought it was very strong.Downloads throw the equation out by quite a bit though .
As has been demonstrated , a track does n't need a " release " to sell.Without a " campaign " , Journey 's " Do n't Stop Believing " is high in the UK charts , purely because Joe McXFactor performed it a couple of times on the show .
Or maybe because of Family Guy... ( * ) Unless you believe in Jewish/Christian God</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it matter?Insofar as selling more singles than anyone else, during an arbitrarily(*) decided time period is important... ... more singles are sold in the week leading up to Christmas than any other week - gifts, parties etc.
- so it's the week with the most competition.
You wouldn't choose to release a single that week, unless you thought it was very strong.Downloads throw the equation out by quite a bit though.
As has been demonstrated, a track doesn't need a "release" to sell.Without a "campaign", Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" is high in the UK charts, purely because Joe McXFactor performed it a couple of times on the show.
Or maybe because of Family Guy...(*) Unless you believe in Jewish/Christian God
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510810</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1261399920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I really care about is that Cliff Richard hasn't had a number 1 this decade, ending his unbroken since the 50s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I really care about is that Cliff Richard has n't had a number 1 this decade , ending his unbroken since the 50s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I really care about is that Cliff Richard hasn't had a number 1 this decade, ending his unbroken since the 50s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512526</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>He who knows</author>
	<datestamp>1261413540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>then you are an idiot. if you buy more than 2 copies then your purchases are not counted. this is stated on the facebook page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>then you are an idiot .
if you buy more than 2 copies then your purchases are not counted .
this is stated on the facebook page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then you are an idiot.
if you buy more than 2 copies then your purchases are not counted.
this is stated on the facebook page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510824</id>
	<title>Yay, let's protest consumerism by consuming MORE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261400100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social media are powerful alright, if your audience is a mouth-breathing uneducated mob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social media are powerful alright , if your audience is a mouth-breathing uneducated mob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social media are powerful alright, if your audience is a mouth-breathing uneducated mob.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511844</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1261409700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  A music chart that follows what the public is listening to!  That is crazy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
A music chart that follows what the public is listening to !
That is crazy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
A music chart that follows what the public is listening to!
That is crazy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512030</id>
	<title>Re:Astroturf</title>
	<author>gnomeza</author>
	<datestamp>1261410660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that it's NOT the same Neil Ridley.

Compare
<ul>
  <li> <a href="http://www.cityshowcase.co.uk/index.php?section=BiosDetail&amp;BioID=5P4axbGI28" title="cityshowcase.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Neil Ridley (the A&amp;R man)</a> [cityshowcase.co.uk]</li><li> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/ejectmedia" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">Neill Ridley (the ragefactor man)</a> [facebook.com] </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it 's NOT the same Neil Ridley .
Compare Neil Ridley ( the A&amp;R man ) [ cityshowcase.co.uk ] Neill Ridley ( the ragefactor man ) [ facebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it's NOT the same Neil Ridley.
Compare

   Neil Ridley (the A&amp;R man) [cityshowcase.co.uk] Neill Ridley (the ragefactor man) [facebook.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511528</id>
	<title>X-Factor should be number 1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep X-Factor should be number 1 at least according to Syco and Sony's numbers.  It must be due to the dam increase in pirates out there.  It has been proclaimed #1 by music industry so it shall be.  Any change from this proclamation is 100\% the result of pirates and Syco and Sony should be rightly be compensated by tax payers monies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep X-Factor should be number 1 at least according to Syco and Sony 's numbers .
It must be due to the dam increase in pirates out there .
It has been proclaimed # 1 by music industry so it shall be .
Any change from this proclamation is 100 \ % the result of pirates and Syco and Sony should be rightly be compensated by tax payers monies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep X-Factor should be number 1 at least according to Syco and Sony's numbers.
It must be due to the dam increase in pirates out there.
It has been proclaimed #1 by music industry so it shall be.
Any change from this proclamation is 100\% the result of pirates and Syco and Sony should be rightly be compensated by tax payers monies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510348</id>
	<title>Summary disingenuous</title>
	<author>adamofgreyskull</author>
	<datestamp>1261393380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>"It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene"</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
In a way, but it was more the fact that the previous 4 years' Christmas Number Ones had been X-Factor winners. It's slightly disingenuous to say that the Facebook campaign was a "kick against the commercialism of Christmas"...<br> <br>

"Commercial dominance" ever was a factor in the race for christmas number one in the UK, but at least it was a race, not a foregone conclusion. Like when the Spice Girls went up against Chef and his Chocolate Salty Balls. The trend in recent years is for the X-Factor winner (whoever it is, it doesn't matter) to win. This is just a big "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"...music lovers taking back the Christmas #1 slot. <br> <br>
(Either that or it's a cynical ploy by Sony BMG to sell 500,000 records that they wouldn't have sold otherwise...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene " In a way , but it was more the fact that the previous 4 years ' Christmas Number Ones had been X-Factor winners .
It 's slightly disingenuous to say that the Facebook campaign was a " kick against the commercialism of Christmas " .. . " Commercial dominance " ever was a factor in the race for christmas number one in the UK , but at least it was a race , not a foregone conclusion .
Like when the Spice Girls went up against Chef and his Chocolate Salty Balls .
The trend in recent years is for the X-Factor winner ( whoever it is , it does n't matter ) to win .
This is just a big " fuck you , I wo n't do what you tell me " ...music lovers taking back the Christmas # 1 slot .
( Either that or it 's a cynical ploy by Sony BMG to sell 500,000 records that they would n't have sold otherwise... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene" 
In a way, but it was more the fact that the previous 4 years' Christmas Number Ones had been X-Factor winners.
It's slightly disingenuous to say that the Facebook campaign was a "kick against the commercialism of Christmas"... 

"Commercial dominance" ever was a factor in the race for christmas number one in the UK, but at least it was a race, not a foregone conclusion.
Like when the Spice Girls went up against Chef and his Chocolate Salty Balls.
The trend in recent years is for the X-Factor winner (whoever it is, it doesn't matter) to win.
This is just a big "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me"...music lovers taking back the Christmas #1 slot.
(Either that or it's a cynical ploy by Sony BMG to sell 500,000 records that they wouldn't have sold otherwise...)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512020</id>
	<title>Re:Astroturf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some interesting things about that site:</p><p>* It was not set up by the same people who set up the main facebook campaign group<br>* It was set up after the campaign became popular and got coverage in the mainstream media<br>* It is not linked to from the main facebook group<br>* It does not link to the main facebook group (it links to its own facebook page, which is inactive in comparison to the actual campaig group)<br>* It seems to exist only to sell t-shirts (10\% to charity but I bet they still make a profit)</p><p>I see no evidence that this has anything  to do with the main facebook campaign and plenty that hints that it is just someone's attempt to cash in. If that is the case then it doesn't suprise me that someone who used to work with Simon Cowell is involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some interesting things about that site : * It was not set up by the same people who set up the main facebook campaign group * It was set up after the campaign became popular and got coverage in the mainstream media * It is not linked to from the main facebook group * It does not link to the main facebook group ( it links to its own facebook page , which is inactive in comparison to the actual campaig group ) * It seems to exist only to sell t-shirts ( 10 \ % to charity but I bet they still make a profit ) I see no evidence that this has anything to do with the main facebook campaign and plenty that hints that it is just someone 's attempt to cash in .
If that is the case then it does n't suprise me that someone who used to work with Simon Cowell is involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some interesting things about that site:* It was not set up by the same people who set up the main facebook campaign group* It was set up after the campaign became popular and got coverage in the mainstream media* It is not linked to from the main facebook group* It does not link to the main facebook group (it links to its own facebook page, which is inactive in comparison to the actual campaig group)* It seems to exist only to sell t-shirts (10\% to charity but I bet they still make a profit)I see no evidence that this has anything  to do with the main facebook campaign and plenty that hints that it is just someone's attempt to cash in.
If that is the case then it doesn't suprise me that someone who used to work with Simon Cowell is involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511834</id>
	<title>Still a big fail</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1261409640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that it is awesome that RATM is donating everything to charity, but...<p><div class="quote"><p>It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and <b>commercial dominance in the music scene</b>, although <b>Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label</b>. <b>Despite this minor detail</b>, it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK, and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook.</p></div><p>
Yeah, if you want to show how people can get together to slow down the commercial dominance in the music scene, especially around X-Mas time, call me crazy, but why would you select a band that is a part of that music.<br> <br>
I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this.<br> <br>
The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid, so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against, you just helped get more sales.<br> <br>
Dude, that is not a minor detail, in fact, that is a pretty big fail there kids.  Remember, if you are fighting commercialist music, do not vote for a band you like that is signed to the same label of the stuff you are fighting against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it is awesome that RATM is donating everything to charity , but...It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene , although Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label .
Despite this minor detail , it 's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK , and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook .
Yeah , if you want to show how people can get together to slow down the commercial dominance in the music scene , especially around X-Mas time , call me crazy , but why would you select a band that is a part of that music .
I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this .
The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid , so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against , you just helped get more sales .
Dude , that is not a minor detail , in fact , that is a pretty big fail there kids .
Remember , if you are fighting commercialist music , do not vote for a band you like that is signed to the same label of the stuff you are fighting against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it is awesome that RATM is donating everything to charity, but...It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene, although Rage and the X-Factor winner Joe McElderry were actually signed to the same label.
Despite this minor detail, it's interesting to note that this is the first song to reach the number one spot through downloads alone in the UK, and is a testament to the organizational power of social networking sites like Facebook.
Yeah, if you want to show how people can get together to slow down the commercial dominance in the music scene, especially around X-Mas time, call me crazy, but why would you select a band that is a part of that music.
I just think it is very strange to pick a band that is signed to the same label as the X-Factor dude who you did not want to have this.
The big name label that you wanted to avoid getting paid is still getting paid, so did you really do anything to fight commercial music when the exact label you wanted to fight against, you just helped get more sales.
Dude, that is not a minor detail, in fact, that is a pretty big fail there kids.
Remember, if you are fighting commercialist music, do not vote for a band you like that is signed to the same label of the stuff you are fighting against.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512942</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1261415520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wanted something other than the bland, synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years.</i></p><p>That IS a political statement.  Please try to understand that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted something other than the bland , synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years.That IS a political statement .
Please try to understand that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted something other than the bland, synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years.That IS a political statement.
Please try to understand that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511084</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1261404060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What song, exactly, requires 3 GB of data to be downloaded, as a single?  Was it a video or just audio?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What song , exactly , requires 3 GB of data to be downloaded , as a single ?
Was it a video or just audio ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What song, exactly, requires 3 GB of data to be downloaded, as a single?
Was it a video or just audio?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30515264</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose is not stated</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1261425540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All it was, was a couple of *Sony executives* saying "wouldn't it be cool if {classic rock song with apt band name} were *pitted for* Christmas number one *against* the pappy ballad that's supposedly a foregone conclusion. *We'll add in an anti-capitalist slant for lulz too.*</p> </div><p>FTFY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All it was , was a couple of * Sony executives * saying " would n't it be cool if { classic rock song with apt band name } were * pitted for * Christmas number one * against * the pappy ballad that 's supposedly a foregone conclusion .
* We 'll add in an anti-capitalist slant for lulz too .
* FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it was, was a couple of *Sony executives* saying "wouldn't it be cool if {classic rock song with apt band name} were *pitted for* Christmas number one *against* the pappy ballad that's supposedly a foregone conclusion.
*We'll add in an anti-capitalist slant for lulz too.
* FTFY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511484</id>
	<title>Re:X Factor is Criminal</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1261407480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with a career as a singer in the musicals in the West End and Broadway.  That's what he is good at, and that is what he should do, not try to be something that he isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with a career as a singer in the musicals in the West End and Broadway .
That 's what he is good at , and that is what he should do , not try to be something that he is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with a career as a singer in the musicals in the West End and Broadway.
That's what he is good at, and that is what he should do, not try to be something that he isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534</id>
	<title>Purpose is not stated</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1261396440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music scene</p></div><p>Supposed by whom?</p><p>All it was, was a couple of people saying "wouldn't it be cool if {classic rock song with apt band name} were Christmas number one instead of the pappy ballad that's supposedly a foregone conclusion. It was an idea with memetic fitness, so it took off.</p><p>Each individual's reason for buying is their own. Whether it's a perceived statement against capitalism, just a kick against the man, or even really liking the song and somehow not already owning a copy.</p><p>FWIW, my reason for taking part was that I thought it would be funny and cool if it worked, and the outlay was 29 pence. If it sends a message to Sony that there's good money to be made promoting non-manufactured bands, so much the better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music sceneSupposed by whom ? All it was , was a couple of people saying " would n't it be cool if { classic rock song with apt band name } were Christmas number one instead of the pappy ballad that 's supposedly a foregone conclusion .
It was an idea with memetic fitness , so it took off.Each individual 's reason for buying is their own .
Whether it 's a perceived statement against capitalism , just a kick against the man , or even really liking the song and somehow not already owning a copy.FWIW , my reason for taking part was that I thought it would be funny and cool if it worked , and the outlay was 29 pence .
If it sends a message to Sony that there 's good money to be made promoting non-manufactured bands , so much the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was supposedly a kick against the commercialism of Christmas and commercial dominance in the music sceneSupposed by whom?All it was, was a couple of people saying "wouldn't it be cool if {classic rock song with apt band name} were Christmas number one instead of the pappy ballad that's supposedly a foregone conclusion.
It was an idea with memetic fitness, so it took off.Each individual's reason for buying is their own.
Whether it's a perceived statement against capitalism, just a kick against the man, or even really liking the song and somehow not already owning a copy.FWIW, my reason for taking part was that I thought it would be funny and cool if it worked, and the outlay was 29 pence.
If it sends a message to Sony that there's good money to be made promoting non-manufactured bands, so much the better.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511928</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1261410120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, yes, the Christmas number one is something of a UK fixation that's almost up there with The Queen's Speech in terms of tradition, you've got me there.  That said, I think this matters a great deal because it hopefully shows the music labels that, despite what they might think, there is actually a large proportion of the music-buying UK population, and probably other countries as well, that is fed up with their usual fare.  X-Factor is probably the pinnacle (or should that be nadir?) of the trend towards music consisting solely of recycled Pop/R&amp;B numbers; Miley Cyrus' version of "The Climb" was still getting airtime only a few weeks ago, and we're already seeing it covered FFS!<br> <br>

With a little luck, the labels will put a little bit more diversity in their catalogues as a result of this little upset and we might get some genuine talent back onto the airwaves instead of just pretty faces singing banal lyrics over and over.  We'd better, because if they carry along the path they are on it's just a matter of time before they find the "ideal" pop song, and put it on an endless loop...  Come to think of, wasn't there a story here on Slashdot a while ago about doing just that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , yes , the Christmas number one is something of a UK fixation that 's almost up there with The Queen 's Speech in terms of tradition , you 've got me there .
That said , I think this matters a great deal because it hopefully shows the music labels that , despite what they might think , there is actually a large proportion of the music-buying UK population , and probably other countries as well , that is fed up with their usual fare .
X-Factor is probably the pinnacle ( or should that be nadir ?
) of the trend towards music consisting solely of recycled Pop/R&amp;B numbers ; Miley Cyrus ' version of " The Climb " was still getting airtime only a few weeks ago , and we 're already seeing it covered FFS !
With a little luck , the labels will put a little bit more diversity in their catalogues as a result of this little upset and we might get some genuine talent back onto the airwaves instead of just pretty faces singing banal lyrics over and over .
We 'd better , because if they carry along the path they are on it 's just a matter of time before they find the " ideal " pop song , and put it on an endless loop... Come to think of , was n't there a story here on Slashdot a while ago about doing just that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, yes, the Christmas number one is something of a UK fixation that's almost up there with The Queen's Speech in terms of tradition, you've got me there.
That said, I think this matters a great deal because it hopefully shows the music labels that, despite what they might think, there is actually a large proportion of the music-buying UK population, and probably other countries as well, that is fed up with their usual fare.
X-Factor is probably the pinnacle (or should that be nadir?
) of the trend towards music consisting solely of recycled Pop/R&amp;B numbers; Miley Cyrus' version of "The Climb" was still getting airtime only a few weeks ago, and we're already seeing it covered FFS!
With a little luck, the labels will put a little bit more diversity in their catalogues as a result of this little upset and we might get some genuine talent back onto the airwaves instead of just pretty faces singing banal lyrics over and over.
We'd better, because if they carry along the path they are on it's just a matter of time before they find the "ideal" pop song, and put it on an endless loop...  Come to think of, wasn't there a story here on Slashdot a while ago about doing just that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511086</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1261404060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(500,000 x 3GB) worth of data</i> <br> <br>

Wait, what? I thought I was supposed to download the MP3, not the frickin' DVD!</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 500,000 x 3GB ) worth of data Wait , what ?
I thought I was supposed to download the MP3 , not the frickin ' DVD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(500,000 x 3GB) worth of data  

Wait, what?
I thought I was supposed to download the MP3, not the frickin' DVD!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511218</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261405440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would have been good to ban people who vote for X-Factor from votting in general elections!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would have been good to ban people who vote for X-Factor from votting in general elections !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would have been good to ban people who vote for X-Factor from votting in general elections!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>siloko</author>
	<datestamp>1261394220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>are giving the proceeds to Shelter</p></div><p>(They stuck a Shelter link on the Facebook page - not quite the same thing!)<br> <br>

Which is good all the same - but on the wider point of sticking two fingers up to the establishment - it is worth mentioning that Rage Against the Machine are signed to the SAME record label as the X-Factor dude and this 'contest' simply pushed the sales of both singles through the roof thereby lining the pockets of Simon Cowell and Sony BMG! And there is the further question as to whether or not it is more 'anti-establishment' being told what to buy by some a TV offering or some grassroots facebook campaign - I'm sure Che would be happy that the revolution is in safe hands<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>are giving the proceeds to Shelter ( They stuck a Shelter link on the Facebook page - not quite the same thing !
) Which is good all the same - but on the wider point of sticking two fingers up to the establishment - it is worth mentioning that Rage Against the Machine are signed to the SAME record label as the X-Factor dude and this 'contest ' simply pushed the sales of both singles through the roof thereby lining the pockets of Simon Cowell and Sony BMG !
And there is the further question as to whether or not it is more 'anti-establishment ' being told what to buy by some a TV offering or some grassroots facebook campaign - I 'm sure Che would be happy that the revolution is in safe hands ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are giving the proceeds to Shelter(They stuck a Shelter link on the Facebook page - not quite the same thing!
) 

Which is good all the same - but on the wider point of sticking two fingers up to the establishment - it is worth mentioning that Rage Against the Machine are signed to the SAME record label as the X-Factor dude and this 'contest' simply pushed the sales of both singles through the roof thereby lining the pockets of Simon Cowell and Sony BMG!
And there is the further question as to whether or not it is more 'anti-establishment' being told what to buy by some a TV offering or some grassroots facebook campaign - I'm sure Che would be happy that the revolution is in safe hands ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511158</id>
	<title>For sale</title>
	<author>gnomeza</author>
	<datestamp>1261404780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I now have 15 Em-Pee-Threes of "Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name", would anyone like to buy them from me?

Actually only 14 for sale since I want to keep one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I now have 15 Em-Pee-Threes of " Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name " , would anyone like to buy them from me ?
Actually only 14 for sale since I want to keep one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now have 15 Em-Pee-Threes of "Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name", would anyone like to buy them from me?
Actually only 14 for sale since I want to keep one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511076</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261403880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, the UK music charts are famous for being wonky and will react to minor fads pretty readily.</p><p>At any given time, the UK charts will have some old Elvis record, maybe something by Cliff Richards, an outtake from an Ozzie session.  If a television program features some 1980's Flock of Seagulls horrorshow, it'll turn up on the UK charts next week.  If you compare the UK charts with the much more influential US charts, you'd practically think they were in different countries or something.</p><p>When I was a kid, my brother (who's now a music critic) and I used to follow the music charts like rabbis study the Torah.  We used to laugh our heads off over the goofy anomalies that would show up on the UK music charts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , the UK music charts are famous for being wonky and will react to minor fads pretty readily.At any given time , the UK charts will have some old Elvis record , maybe something by Cliff Richards , an outtake from an Ozzie session .
If a television program features some 1980 's Flock of Seagulls horrorshow , it 'll turn up on the UK charts next week .
If you compare the UK charts with the much more influential US charts , you 'd practically think they were in different countries or something.When I was a kid , my brother ( who 's now a music critic ) and I used to follow the music charts like rabbis study the Torah .
We used to laugh our heads off over the goofy anomalies that would show up on the UK music charts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, the UK music charts are famous for being wonky and will react to minor fads pretty readily.At any given time, the UK charts will have some old Elvis record, maybe something by Cliff Richards, an outtake from an Ozzie session.
If a television program features some 1980's Flock of Seagulls horrorshow, it'll turn up on the UK charts next week.
If you compare the UK charts with the much more influential US charts, you'd practically think they were in different countries or something.When I was a kid, my brother (who's now a music critic) and I used to follow the music charts like rabbis study the Torah.
We used to laugh our heads off over the goofy anomalies that would show up on the UK music charts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512860</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>tombazza</author>
	<datestamp>1261415160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the digital distribution partners that Sony license to sell their music on their behalf will be the ones paying for the bandwidth. As far as the label is concerned, the profit they make is essentially the same margin they would expect from a retail sale, in that they have already forked out to get the content onto the shelves/servers. Much in the same way that a record shop would pay the label for the copies of the album, pay for the consignment to be delivered and then pay their staff to stock it on the shelves.</p><p>So yes, Sony have probably done rather well out of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the digital distribution partners that Sony license to sell their music on their behalf will be the ones paying for the bandwidth .
As far as the label is concerned , the profit they make is essentially the same margin they would expect from a retail sale , in that they have already forked out to get the content onto the shelves/servers .
Much in the same way that a record shop would pay the label for the copies of the album , pay for the consignment to be delivered and then pay their staff to stock it on the shelves.So yes , Sony have probably done rather well out of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the digital distribution partners that Sony license to sell their music on their behalf will be the ones paying for the bandwidth.
As far as the label is concerned, the profit they make is essentially the same margin they would expect from a retail sale, in that they have already forked out to get the content onto the shelves/servers.
Much in the same way that a record shop would pay the label for the copies of the album, pay for the consignment to be delivered and then pay their staff to stock it on the shelves.So yes, Sony have probably done rather well out of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512314</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what can you do?<br>People focused in on this campaign because it was simple, you pay 29p, and the x-factor looses at the charts.<br>What can you do in politics? Vote once every 4 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what can you do ? People focused in on this campaign because it was simple , you pay 29p , and the x-factor looses at the charts.What can you do in politics ?
Vote once every 4 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what can you do?People focused in on this campaign because it was simple, you pay 29p, and the x-factor looses at the charts.What can you do in politics?
Vote once every 4 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511750</id>
	<title>Re:Redneck humbug!</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1261409160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit, read the wiki page.  That song is now in the catalog of Epic Records, the same label that RATM is signed to.  Sony wins no matter how you slice it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , read the wiki page .
That song is now in the catalog of Epic Records , the same label that RATM is signed to .
Sony wins no matter how you slice it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, read the wiki page.
That song is now in the catalog of Epic Records, the same label that RATM is signed to.
Sony wins no matter how you slice it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510624</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, all this shows is how silly charts ar</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1261397520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In this case by showing Sony we won't take their crap, by buying their crap</p></div><p>No, it's a case of showing Simon Cowell that we won't take his crap by buying someone else's music. yeah, it's on the same label but the sentiment of "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" is perfect when taken in this context.</p><p>Yeah, getting people to buy nothing is nice idea, but it's too passive to work. It's better this way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case by showing Sony we wo n't take their crap , by buying their crapNo , it 's a case of showing Simon Cowell that we wo n't take his crap by buying someone else 's music .
yeah , it 's on the same label but the sentiment of " fuck you , I wo n't do what you tell me " is perfect when taken in this context.Yeah , getting people to buy nothing is nice idea , but it 's too passive to work .
It 's better this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case by showing Sony we won't take their crap, by buying their crapNo, it's a case of showing Simon Cowell that we won't take his crap by buying someone else's music.
yeah, it's on the same label but the sentiment of "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" is perfect when taken in this context.Yeah, getting people to buy nothing is nice idea, but it's too passive to work.
It's better this way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510916</id>
	<title>Re:X Factor is Criminal</title>
	<author>Archibald Buttle</author>
	<datestamp>1261401600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst I do agree with the sentiment that X Factor is criminal, you're facts aren't quite straight here.</p><p>Susan Boyle was a product of Britain's Got Talent.  (She didn't win that show either - she was the runner up - a dance troupe beat her.)  A show that clearly demonstrated that there's vanishingly little talent in the British population.</p><p>As for this year's winner of X Factor, what a freaking drip he is.  "Wet" doesn't even begin to describe him.  He's a show-tune singer, singing a show-tune and grannies like him.  A "pop star" he is not, and never will be.  This time next year he'll be doing musical theatre and his label will have dropped him.  Everyone will have forgotten about him, much like almost every other X Factor/Pop Idol/American Idol/generic-talent-show winners.</p><p>There definitely should be a law against this kind of thing.  For starters, I personally would have walked straight out of that Yamaha shop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst I do agree with the sentiment that X Factor is criminal , you 're facts are n't quite straight here.Susan Boyle was a product of Britain 's Got Talent .
( She did n't win that show either - she was the runner up - a dance troupe beat her .
) A show that clearly demonstrated that there 's vanishingly little talent in the British population.As for this year 's winner of X Factor , what a freaking drip he is .
" Wet " does n't even begin to describe him .
He 's a show-tune singer , singing a show-tune and grannies like him .
A " pop star " he is not , and never will be .
This time next year he 'll be doing musical theatre and his label will have dropped him .
Everyone will have forgotten about him , much like almost every other X Factor/Pop Idol/American Idol/generic-talent-show winners.There definitely should be a law against this kind of thing .
For starters , I personally would have walked straight out of that Yamaha shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst I do agree with the sentiment that X Factor is criminal, you're facts aren't quite straight here.Susan Boyle was a product of Britain's Got Talent.
(She didn't win that show either - she was the runner up - a dance troupe beat her.
)  A show that clearly demonstrated that there's vanishingly little talent in the British population.As for this year's winner of X Factor, what a freaking drip he is.
"Wet" doesn't even begin to describe him.
He's a show-tune singer, singing a show-tune and grannies like him.
A "pop star" he is not, and never will be.
This time next year he'll be doing musical theatre and his label will have dropped him.
Everyone will have forgotten about him, much like almost every other X Factor/Pop Idol/American Idol/generic-talent-show winners.There definitely should be a law against this kind of thing.
For starters, I personally would have walked straight out of that Yamaha shop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511082</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose is not stated</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1261404000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo... it made me listen to the Christmas chart show for the first time in years. It was a silly distraction from the endless slog of pre-Christmas bullshit, adverts and tat in the stores. Five minutes of pleasant diversion from the mill, everything else added to this story by the actors, media and public is irrelevant to the core argument, it made something boring become, briefly, interesting (for me at any rate).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo... it made me listen to the Christmas chart show for the first time in years .
It was a silly distraction from the endless slog of pre-Christmas bullshit , adverts and tat in the stores .
Five minutes of pleasant diversion from the mill , everything else added to this story by the actors , media and public is irrelevant to the core argument , it made something boring become , briefly , interesting ( for me at any rate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo... it made me listen to the Christmas chart show for the first time in years.
It was a silly distraction from the endless slog of pre-Christmas bullshit, adverts and tat in the stores.
Five minutes of pleasant diversion from the mill, everything else added to this story by the actors, media and public is irrelevant to the core argument, it made something boring become, briefly, interesting (for me at any rate).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513084</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1261416060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why does it matter?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Indeed, how can <strong>anything</strong> matter now that Brittany Murphy is dead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it matter ?
Indeed , how can anything matter now that Brittany Murphy is dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it matter?
Indeed, how can anything matter now that Brittany Murphy is dead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512416</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Richy\_T</author>
	<datestamp>1261413060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quite like "Killing in the Name" but it is fairly contrived and hardly really subversive, just exploiting standard youth feelings of rebellion, alienation and frustration.</p><p>It does fill me with glee to see the charts subverted this way though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quite like " Killing in the Name " but it is fairly contrived and hardly really subversive , just exploiting standard youth feelings of rebellion , alienation and frustration.It does fill me with glee to see the charts subverted this way though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quite like "Killing in the Name" but it is fairly contrived and hardly really subversive, just exploiting standard youth feelings of rebellion, alienation and frustration.It does fill me with glee to see the charts subverted this way though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511638</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed it's horrifying!

I think most organised efforts like this require a clear distinctions so people can make clear choices and that's not what happens in UK politics. We have a choice between two centre right parties who spend a lot of time and effort trying to criticise each other despite the fact that they largely agree on the important stuff and would mostly make the same decisions in the same way using the same advisor's all things being equal. It's very hard to get excited about that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed it 's horrifying !
I think most organised efforts like this require a clear distinctions so people can make clear choices and that 's not what happens in UK politics .
We have a choice between two centre right parties who spend a lot of time and effort trying to criticise each other despite the fact that they largely agree on the important stuff and would mostly make the same decisions in the same way using the same advisor 's all things being equal .
It 's very hard to get excited about that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed it's horrifying!
I think most organised efforts like this require a clear distinctions so people can make clear choices and that's not what happens in UK politics.
We have a choice between two centre right parties who spend a lot of time and effort trying to criticise each other despite the fact that they largely agree on the important stuff and would mostly make the same decisions in the same way using the same advisor's all things being equal.
It's very hard to get excited about that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511600</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1261408260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics... This mentality scares the crap out of me!</p></div></blockquote><p>Look, regardless of the producer behind it, regardless of the actual content of the show, anything that puts debate on prime time TV is a win in my books. Score two for debating relevant contemporary issues, but we'll have to wait and see on that count.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again Simon Cowell wants to " X-Factor " politics... This mentality scares the crap out of me ! Look , regardless of the producer behind it , regardless of the actual content of the show , anything that puts debate on prime time TV is a win in my books .
Score two for debating relevant contemporary issues , but we 'll have to wait and see on that count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again Simon Cowell wants to "X-Factor" politics... This mentality scares the crap out of me!Look, regardless of the producer behind it, regardless of the actual content of the show, anything that puts debate on prime time TV is a win in my books.
Score two for debating relevant contemporary issues, but we'll have to wait and see on that count.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510896</id>
	<title>Sony's reply</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1261401180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track [...] I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.</p></div><p>I presented your idea to Sony's CEO, and here's what he told me:</p><p>"Fuck you I won't do as you tell me!"</p><p>(He repeated that until fading out)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track [ ... ] I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.I presented your idea to Sony 's CEO , and here 's what he told me : " Fuck you I wo n't do as you tell me !
" ( He repeated that until fading out )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track [...] I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.I presented your idea to Sony's CEO, and here's what he told me:"Fuck you I won't do as you tell me!
"(He repeated that until fading out)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511912</id>
	<title>Re:Astroturf</title>
	<author>Fallus Shempus</author>
	<datestamp>1261410000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, don't see a link between the ragefactor website and John Morter.<br> <br>Yes this may be an attempt to cash in by Sony/Cowell/Little Green Men but that is all it is</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , do n't see a link between the ragefactor website and John Morter .
Yes this may be an attempt to cash in by Sony/Cowell/Little Green Men but that is all it is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, don't see a link between the ragefactor website and John Morter.
Yes this may be an attempt to cash in by Sony/Cowell/Little Green Men but that is all it is</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511194</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose is not stated</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261405140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, exactly! I just thought it would be funny too.</p><p>It's hilarious to see all these ludicrous straw man arguments trotted out, talking as if all 500,000 people had the same viewpoint, by people who are evidently getting so worked up about it. Makes me all the more glad that I took part<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) (It reminds me of the Atheist Bus Campaign - there was much the same response in the media, with people making straw man arguments against those who donated, as if unable to accept that someone should spend their money how they choose.)</p><p>Depressing to see that such arguments are happening even here on Slashdot - but I suspect that's just the anti-Facebook bias shining through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , exactly !
I just thought it would be funny too.It 's hilarious to see all these ludicrous straw man arguments trotted out , talking as if all 500,000 people had the same viewpoint , by people who are evidently getting so worked up about it .
Makes me all the more glad that I took part : ) ( It reminds me of the Atheist Bus Campaign - there was much the same response in the media , with people making straw man arguments against those who donated , as if unable to accept that someone should spend their money how they choose .
) Depressing to see that such arguments are happening even here on Slashdot - but I suspect that 's just the anti-Facebook bias shining through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, exactly!
I just thought it would be funny too.It's hilarious to see all these ludicrous straw man arguments trotted out, talking as if all 500,000 people had the same viewpoint, by people who are evidently getting so worked up about it.
Makes me all the more glad that I took part :) (It reminds me of the Atheist Bus Campaign - there was much the same response in the media, with people making straw man arguments against those who donated, as if unable to accept that someone should spend their money how they choose.
)Depressing to see that such arguments are happening even here on Slashdot - but I suspect that's just the anti-Facebook bias shining through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510778</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>threephaseboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261399560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;implying that a single track is 3GB</p></div><p>wat</p><p>Also the track is 5:14 so it's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode, so ~5TB total transferred, which would cost about $850 from Amazon S3</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; implying that a single track is 3GBwatAlso the track is 5 : 14 so it 's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode , so ~ 5TB total transferred , which would cost about $ 850 from Amazon S3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;implying that a single track is 3GBwatAlso the track is 5:14 so it's actually more like 10MB for a 256kbps encode, so ~5TB total transferred, which would cost about $850 from Amazon S3
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510470</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>bluesatin</author>
	<datestamp>1261395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely making politics more interesting for the general public is a good thing?</p><p>It might get people interested in a subject that has a social taboo surrounding it, as well as being fairly intimidating at first; I know I'd like some sort of simplified breakdown of things half the time, which is why I try and catch <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsround" title="wikipedia.org">Newsround</a> [wikipedia.org] if I can (if you're not British, it's a child's news show).</p><p>The problem being is that I can see it being terribly biased; maybe I'm spoilt a little bit from the <i>fairly</i> neutral BBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely making politics more interesting for the general public is a good thing ? It might get people interested in a subject that has a social taboo surrounding it , as well as being fairly intimidating at first ; I know I 'd like some sort of simplified breakdown of things half the time , which is why I try and catch Newsround [ wikipedia.org ] if I can ( if you 're not British , it 's a child 's news show ) .The problem being is that I can see it being terribly biased ; maybe I 'm spoilt a little bit from the fairly neutral BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely making politics more interesting for the general public is a good thing?It might get people interested in a subject that has a social taboo surrounding it, as well as being fairly intimidating at first; I know I'd like some sort of simplified breakdown of things half the time, which is why I try and catch Newsround [wikipedia.org] if I can (if you're not British, it's a child's news show).The problem being is that I can see it being terribly biased; maybe I'm spoilt a little bit from the fairly neutral BBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261406880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find difficult to wrap my mind around is the fact that anyone really cares this much what song is at #1 on Christmas.  Yes, I know, it's a long-standing British fixation, presumably starting from some record label or another trumpeting about how popular a gift their latest 45 was.  And it's nice that from time to time it can be used to focus attention on something serious, like with "Do They Know It's Christmas?"<br>
&nbsp; <br>But really: Why does it matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find difficult to wrap my mind around is the fact that anyone really cares this much what song is at # 1 on Christmas .
Yes , I know , it 's a long-standing British fixation , presumably starting from some record label or another trumpeting about how popular a gift their latest 45 was .
And it 's nice that from time to time it can be used to focus attention on something serious , like with " Do They Know It 's Christmas ?
"   But really : Why does it matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find difficult to wrap my mind around is the fact that anyone really cares this much what song is at #1 on Christmas.
Yes, I know, it's a long-standing British fixation, presumably starting from some record label or another trumpeting about how popular a gift their latest 45 was.
And it's nice that from time to time it can be used to focus attention on something serious, like with "Do They Know It's Christmas?
"
  But really: Why does it matter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510718</id>
	<title>Re:X Factor is Criminal, there should be a law...</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1261398780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amendment proposal 42 is before the House; the lawful slaying of sir Simon Cowell offe Brighton for crimes against humanity.</p><p>All in favour say Aye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amendment proposal 42 is before the House ; the lawful slaying of sir Simon Cowell offe Brighton for crimes against humanity.All in favour say Aye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amendment proposal 42 is before the House; the lawful slaying of sir Simon Cowell offe Brighton for crimes against humanity.All in favour say Aye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511552</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1261407840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, if only we can transfer this enthusiasm to politics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if only we can transfer this enthusiasm to politics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if only we can transfer this enthusiasm to politics...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516402</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>larien</author>
	<datestamp>1261387860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, had the whole thing in various people's facebook status whinging about how we've "pissed on his dreams". My response was that he'd pissed on the dreams of the others in X-Factor (not that I care about them) as well as anyone who might have actually put in the effort to write something orginal and aim to get to number 1.
<p>
Cue the world's smallest violin, playing just for Joe...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , had the whole thing in various people 's facebook status whinging about how we 've " pissed on his dreams " .
My response was that he 'd pissed on the dreams of the others in X-Factor ( not that I care about them ) as well as anyone who might have actually put in the effort to write something orginal and aim to get to number 1 .
Cue the world 's smallest violin , playing just for Joe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, had the whole thing in various people's facebook status whinging about how we've "pissed on his dreams".
My response was that he'd pissed on the dreams of the others in X-Factor (not that I care about them) as well as anyone who might have actually put in the effort to write something orginal and aim to get to number 1.
Cue the world's smallest violin, playing just for Joe...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510588</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>bigtomrodney</author>
	<datestamp>1261397040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would have to say that you making a concerted effort to make sure one song was at number one while keeping...<p><div class="quote"><p>something other than the bland, synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years</p></div><p>...out of the charts. Though you may not care for the politics at the surface of it, you most certainly are contributing to the campaign in going beyond what anyone could consider a normal music purchase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have to say that you making a concerted effort to make sure one song was at number one while keeping...something other than the bland , synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years...out of the charts .
Though you may not care for the politics at the surface of it , you most certainly are contributing to the campaign in going beyond what anyone could consider a normal music purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have to say that you making a concerted effort to make sure one song was at number one while keeping...something other than the bland, synthesised crap that we get as a christmas number 1 these last few years...out of the charts.
Though you may not care for the politics at the surface of it, you most certainly are contributing to the campaign in going beyond what anyone could consider a normal music purchase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261395060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, RATM are donating their proceeds from the sales to Shelter as well as the &pound;70,000 (it's even mentioned in the article linked from the summary) and intend throw a free concert in the UK at some point next year.  Of course, this is only the artist's cut of 500,000 digital downloads that we are talking about here, so I'd be very surprised if the total was much larger than the &pound;70,000 generated from the Facebook page.<br> <br>

Personally, my eyes are now on Sony UK and, to a lesser extent, Simon Cowell.  Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track, plus probably a good 100,000 extra copies of McElderry's bought by X-Factor fans to try and keep RATM off number one spot.  Total materials cost: &pound;0.  I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , RATM are donating their proceeds from the sales to Shelter as well as the   70,000 ( it 's even mentioned in the article linked from the summary ) and intend throw a free concert in the UK at some point next year .
Of course , this is only the artist 's cut of 500,000 digital downloads that we are talking about here , so I 'd be very surprised if the total was much larger than the   70,000 generated from the Facebook page .
Personally , my eyes are now on Sony UK and , to a lesser extent , Simon Cowell .
Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track , plus probably a good 100,000 extra copies of McElderry 's bought by X-Factor fans to try and keep RATM off number one spot .
Total materials cost :   0 .
I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, RATM are donating their proceeds from the sales to Shelter as well as the £70,000 (it's even mentioned in the article linked from the summary) and intend throw a free concert in the UK at some point next year.
Of course, this is only the artist's cut of 500,000 digital downloads that we are talking about here, so I'd be very surprised if the total was much larger than the £70,000 generated from the Facebook page.
Personally, my eyes are now on Sony UK and, to a lesser extent, Simon Cowell.
Sony have profited to the tune of 500,000 digital downloads on the RATM track, plus probably a good 100,000 extra copies of McElderry's bought by X-Factor fans to try and keep RATM off number one spot.
Total materials cost: £0.
I think it only fair that they make a gesture in kind and make a sizable donation to Shelter as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516542</id>
	<title>Re:Charity</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1261388520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sony don't bear the cost, their retailers do (play.com, or whoever).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony do n't bear the cost , their retailers do ( play.com , or whoever ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony don't bear the cost, their retailers do (play.com, or whoever).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510798</id>
	<title>Re:Vote For Something Serious!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261399800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You believe it to be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/like/ totally horrifying, without actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/being/ totally horrifying? Puzzling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You believe it to be /like/ totally horrifying , without actually /being/ totally horrifying ?
Puzzling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You believe it to be /like/ totally horrifying, without actually /being/ totally horrifying?
Puzzling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30515264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30525836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30557440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30521806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_2152229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30557440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30515264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_2152229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510782
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30525836
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511200
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510724
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511084
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30516542
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512310
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511368
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510778
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511518
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514022
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511086
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510912
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511290
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511754
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512860
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30521806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510522
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30514052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512526
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30510882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511376
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513232
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511720
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511548
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511952
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30513084
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30511928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_2152229.30512942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
