<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1555228</id>
	<title>CES Vendors Kicked Out of Hotels For Showcasing Wares in Room</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263234420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes to mention that a number of companies attempting to stretch their dollars by showing their new gear in hotel suites around Vegas during CES were <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17354">kicked out of the rooms they paid for</a> by CES organizers and hotel staff. According to sources as many as 30 small electronics companies may have been kicked out of The Venetian and The Palazzo on Thursday. One anonymous vendor claims they were coerced into paying $10,000 to the CEA lest they be kicked out of their (paid for) suite and barred from exhibiting or meeting with clients.  'States our source, "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite. They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties. They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product. We set up our product on the first day. Then on Wednesday a cleaning person came in and reported what they saw to management. From there we got kicked out on Thursday."'</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes to mention that a number of companies attempting to stretch their dollars by showing their new gear in hotel suites around Vegas during CES were kicked out of the rooms they paid for by CES organizers and hotel staff .
According to sources as many as 30 small electronics companies may have been kicked out of The Venetian and The Palazzo on Thursday .
One anonymous vendor claims they were coerced into paying $ 10,000 to the CEA lest they be kicked out of their ( paid for ) suite and barred from exhibiting or meeting with clients .
'States our source , " I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite .
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties .
They did n't say there were any limitations on displaying product .
We set up our product on the first day .
Then on Wednesday a cleaning person came in and reported what they saw to management .
From there we got kicked out on Thursday .
" '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes to mention that a number of companies attempting to stretch their dollars by showing their new gear in hotel suites around Vegas during CES were kicked out of the rooms they paid for by CES organizers and hotel staff.
According to sources as many as 30 small electronics companies may have been kicked out of The Venetian and The Palazzo on Thursday.
One anonymous vendor claims they were coerced into paying $10,000 to the CEA lest they be kicked out of their (paid for) suite and barred from exhibiting or meeting with clients.
'States our source, "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties.
They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product.
We set up our product on the first day.
Then on Wednesday a cleaning person came in and reported what they saw to management.
From there we got kicked out on Thursday.
"'</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</id>
	<title>And this is news why?</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1263238200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean I'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean I 'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean I'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727820</id>
	<title>Vegas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vegas is a shithole</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vegas is a shithole</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vegas is a shithole</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727834</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263201360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vendors have been showing their products in hotel hospitality suites for decades. I've never been to any trade show yet where this wasn't the case.</p></div><p>Yes, but those same vendors also have a space on the exhibition floor for which they have paid the aforementioned $10,000 fee to the conference promoters. If they want to have a fancy suite(s) for VIP guests and "high-roller" types to demo gear and network in a more private setting (away from the riffraff on the convention floor) <i>in addition</i> to the floor space; nobody minds. The problem here is that some vendors who have NOT paid for floor space were attempting to hustle people into their hotel suites instead (i.e. taking advantage of the conference promoters efforts to bring everyone into town for the show, but not paying the exhibitor fees).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know what the hell CES management is thinking if they consider this any kind of a problem.</p></div><p>Its a problem because these vendors did not also pay the $10,000 exhibitor fees. They are "free-riding" off of the event promoters' efforts to organize, advertise and bring a large and interested audience into town for a couple of days without paying the exhibitor's price of admission. I can understand why the event promoters are upset in this case; especially since they probably paid these hotels extra for exclusivity deals as part of their contracts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vendors have been showing their products in hotel hospitality suites for decades .
I 've never been to any trade show yet where this was n't the case.Yes , but those same vendors also have a space on the exhibition floor for which they have paid the aforementioned $ 10,000 fee to the conference promoters .
If they want to have a fancy suite ( s ) for VIP guests and " high-roller " types to demo gear and network in a more private setting ( away from the riffraff on the convention floor ) in addition to the floor space ; nobody minds .
The problem here is that some vendors who have NOT paid for floor space were attempting to hustle people into their hotel suites instead ( i.e .
taking advantage of the conference promoters efforts to bring everyone into town for the show , but not paying the exhibitor fees ) .I do n't know what the hell CES management is thinking if they consider this any kind of a problem.Its a problem because these vendors did not also pay the $ 10,000 exhibitor fees .
They are " free-riding " off of the event promoters ' efforts to organize , advertise and bring a large and interested audience into town for a couple of days without paying the exhibitor 's price of admission .
I can understand why the event promoters are upset in this case ; especially since they probably paid these hotels extra for exclusivity deals as part of their contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vendors have been showing their products in hotel hospitality suites for decades.
I've never been to any trade show yet where this wasn't the case.Yes, but those same vendors also have a space on the exhibition floor for which they have paid the aforementioned $10,000 fee to the conference promoters.
If they want to have a fancy suite(s) for VIP guests and "high-roller" types to demo gear and network in a more private setting (away from the riffraff on the convention floor) in addition to the floor space; nobody minds.
The problem here is that some vendors who have NOT paid for floor space were attempting to hustle people into their hotel suites instead (i.e.
taking advantage of the conference promoters efforts to bring everyone into town for the show, but not paying the exhibitor fees).I don't know what the hell CES management is thinking if they consider this any kind of a problem.Its a problem because these vendors did not also pay the $10,000 exhibitor fees.
They are "free-riding" off of the event promoters' efforts to organize, advertise and bring a large and interested audience into town for a couple of days without paying the exhibitor's price of admission.
I can understand why the event promoters are upset in this case; especially since they probably paid these hotels extra for exclusivity deals as part of their contracts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To sum up TFA:</p><p>1.  CEA buys out Vegas for a week, attracting technology enthusiasts and large companions from across the globe.<br>2.  Said organization is holding the balls of local buisness so tight, that they must bend over to anything the CEA demands.<br>(In this instance it was having The Venetian, The Palazzo kick out small/medium tech buisnesses who couldn't afford a CES floor spot onto the streets unless they paid the hefty fee of $10,000)<br>3.  ???<br>4.  Profit!</p><p>Another evil coorperation fucking over the little guy, nothing to see here folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To sum up TFA : 1 .
CEA buys out Vegas for a week , attracting technology enthusiasts and large companions from across the globe.2 .
Said organization is holding the balls of local buisness so tight , that they must bend over to anything the CEA demands .
( In this instance it was having The Venetian , The Palazzo kick out small/medium tech buisnesses who could n't afford a CES floor spot onto the streets unless they paid the hefty fee of $ 10,000 ) 3 .
? ? ? 4. Profit ! Another evil coorperation fucking over the little guy , nothing to see here folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To sum up TFA:1.
CEA buys out Vegas for a week, attracting technology enthusiasts and large companions from across the globe.2.
Said organization is holding the balls of local buisness so tight, that they must bend over to anything the CEA demands.
(In this instance it was having The Venetian, The Palazzo kick out small/medium tech buisnesses who couldn't afford a CES floor spot onto the streets unless they paid the hefty fee of $10,000)3.
???4.  Profit!Another evil coorperation fucking over the little guy, nothing to see here folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727810</id>
	<title>Come on - it's Vegas.</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1263201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone REALLY surprised? This is the place that embraces the exploitation of others. If you don't want to get shaken down then don't go to Vegas. I sure as hell don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone REALLY surprised ?
This is the place that embraces the exploitation of others .
If you do n't want to get shaken down then do n't go to Vegas .
I sure as hell do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone REALLY surprised?
This is the place that embraces the exploitation of others.
If you don't want to get shaken down then don't go to Vegas.
I sure as hell don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729828</id>
	<title>Because it isn't that unusual</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1263208500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just as common as not, at least from my experience, as full time trade show worker for fifteen years before I semi retired back to farming. I have helped set up displays and product and arranged tables of literature and swag in any number of hotel rooms before, with the main action down in the exhibit halls or in the larger conference rooms, and I have always known it to go on and really..vendors meeting with clients in hotel rooms? Oh hey, look, I have the widget we are selling right here in my case... This is as common as anything, all over the planet, like as long as there have been hotels. A lot of times people make some contacts then they go back to the more private rooms to work out deals, etc, and they might still be looking at the products then. It just widely varies, and unless the show management and the hotels actually denied this practice in advance, and they can prove it, those folks got at least semi shafted. (guessing based on lack of more detail in TFA, it is all hearsay. Even if it was just coattail riding and they paid ces nothing, they still paid the hotel, and the hotel should have that restriction in some contract and be upfront about it in advance.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just as common as not , at least from my experience , as full time trade show worker for fifteen years before I semi retired back to farming .
I have helped set up displays and product and arranged tables of literature and swag in any number of hotel rooms before , with the main action down in the exhibit halls or in the larger conference rooms , and I have always known it to go on and really..vendors meeting with clients in hotel rooms ?
Oh hey , look , I have the widget we are selling right here in my case... This is as common as anything , all over the planet , like as long as there have been hotels .
A lot of times people make some contacts then they go back to the more private rooms to work out deals , etc , and they might still be looking at the products then .
It just widely varies , and unless the show management and the hotels actually denied this practice in advance , and they can prove it , those folks got at least semi shafted .
( guessing based on lack of more detail in TFA , it is all hearsay .
Even if it was just coattail riding and they paid ces nothing , they still paid the hotel , and the hotel should have that restriction in some contract and be upfront about it in advance .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just as common as not, at least from my experience, as full time trade show worker for fifteen years before I semi retired back to farming.
I have helped set up displays and product and arranged tables of literature and swag in any number of hotel rooms before, with the main action down in the exhibit halls or in the larger conference rooms, and I have always known it to go on and really..vendors meeting with clients in hotel rooms?
Oh hey, look, I have the widget we are selling right here in my case... This is as common as anything, all over the planet, like as long as there have been hotels.
A lot of times people make some contacts then they go back to the more private rooms to work out deals, etc, and they might still be looking at the products then.
It just widely varies, and unless the show management and the hotels actually denied this practice in advance, and they can prove it, those folks got at least semi shafted.
(guessing based on lack of more detail in TFA, it is all hearsay.
Even if it was just coattail riding and they paid ces nothing, they still paid the hotel, and the hotel should have that restriction in some contract and be upfront about it in advance.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726252</id>
	<title>Whats the Warez connection?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263239400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had to read this at least three times to figure out they meant "wares" not "warez".</p><p>I was thinking, video game modchips and rom images, or torrented movies playing in the hospitality suite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to read this at least three times to figure out they meant " wares " not " warez " .I was thinking , video game modchips and rom images , or torrented movies playing in the hospitality suite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to read this at least three times to figure out they meant "wares" not "warez".I was thinking, video game modchips and rom images, or torrented movies playing in the hospitality suite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731582</id>
	<title>seems like a standard breach of contract lawsuit</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1263217740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should be easily dealt with in court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be easily dealt with in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be easily dealt with in court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726234</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Kemanorel</author>
	<datestamp>1263239280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having stayed at the Venetian the week before CES two years ago, I can say without a doubt that it is usually standard practice to hold meetings in hotel rooms.  I had been upgraded to a suite there and the night before I was to check out, hotel staff were removing beds (mattresses and frames) from every room in the same wing and floor I was staying on.  I can only imagine that they were going to take the bed from the room I was in as soon as I checked out.</p><p>When I used to attend CES in the late 90's through 2002, I was well aware of business meetings as well as parties being held in hotel rooms at most of the nearby hotels.  I never received an invite, but the Kentia hall vendors would often have a sign saying, "Come see our presentation in room <i>blah</i> of the [Hilton, Venetian, Sands, etc...]."</p><p>I'm thinking this is just CES management shaking down unregistered vendors that are trying to piggyback on the show without paying a share.  I could be wrong though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having stayed at the Venetian the week before CES two years ago , I can say without a doubt that it is usually standard practice to hold meetings in hotel rooms .
I had been upgraded to a suite there and the night before I was to check out , hotel staff were removing beds ( mattresses and frames ) from every room in the same wing and floor I was staying on .
I can only imagine that they were going to take the bed from the room I was in as soon as I checked out.When I used to attend CES in the late 90 's through 2002 , I was well aware of business meetings as well as parties being held in hotel rooms at most of the nearby hotels .
I never received an invite , but the Kentia hall vendors would often have a sign saying , " Come see our presentation in room blah of the [ Hilton , Venetian , Sands , etc... ] .
" I 'm thinking this is just CES management shaking down unregistered vendors that are trying to piggyback on the show without paying a share .
I could be wrong though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having stayed at the Venetian the week before CES two years ago, I can say without a doubt that it is usually standard practice to hold meetings in hotel rooms.
I had been upgraded to a suite there and the night before I was to check out, hotel staff were removing beds (mattresses and frames) from every room in the same wing and floor I was staying on.
I can only imagine that they were going to take the bed from the room I was in as soon as I checked out.When I used to attend CES in the late 90's through 2002, I was well aware of business meetings as well as parties being held in hotel rooms at most of the nearby hotels.
I never received an invite, but the Kentia hall vendors would often have a sign saying, "Come see our presentation in room blah of the [Hilton, Venetian, Sands, etc...].
"I'm thinking this is just CES management shaking down unregistered vendors that are trying to piggyback on the show without paying a share.
I could be wrong though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728866</id>
	<title>Re:Contracts anyone?</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1263205020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel.</i>
</p><p>
I also thought so, being not a L. However someone above already corrected both of us. The hotel industry is regulated by the innkeeper statute. I remember seeing it posted in hotel rooms. This means that state laws control the hotel industry, and individual hotels have little say in what is and what isn't allowed. As the comment above points out, a guest is free to do pretty much anything that is legal.
</p><p>
<i>It's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel</i>
</p><p>
As you say, it's irrelevant.
</p><p>
<i>unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed</i>
</p><p>
Per the <a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-651.html" title="state.nv.us">innkeeper statute</a> [state.nv.us], the hotel has no such right - see NRS 651.080 in the link above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel .
I also thought so , being not a L. However someone above already corrected both of us .
The hotel industry is regulated by the innkeeper statute .
I remember seeing it posted in hotel rooms .
This means that state laws control the hotel industry , and individual hotels have little say in what is and what is n't allowed .
As the comment above points out , a guest is free to do pretty much anything that is legal .
It 's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel As you say , it 's irrelevant .
unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed Per the innkeeper statute [ state.nv.us ] , the hotel has no such right - see NRS 651.080 in the link above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel.
I also thought so, being not a L. However someone above already corrected both of us.
The hotel industry is regulated by the innkeeper statute.
I remember seeing it posted in hotel rooms.
This means that state laws control the hotel industry, and individual hotels have little say in what is and what isn't allowed.
As the comment above points out, a guest is free to do pretty much anything that is legal.
It's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel

As you say, it's irrelevant.
unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed

Per the innkeeper statute [state.nv.us], the hotel has no such right - see NRS 651.080 in the link above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727596</id>
	<title>Same with other big shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a NAB exhibitor for more than a decade I can assure you that the same holds true there.  You can show stuff in a hotel suite, even if you're not on the show floor, but you still have to pay NAB or they'll shut you down.  The CEA wasn't saying that they couldn't display product in the hotel suite, but that they had to pay for the privilege.  And $10000 plus the cost of the hotel suite is \_cheap\_ compared to what it costs to be on the show floor once you factor in the floor space cost, cost of utilities, having to use the expensive show labor, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a NAB exhibitor for more than a decade I can assure you that the same holds true there .
You can show stuff in a hotel suite , even if you 're not on the show floor , but you still have to pay NAB or they 'll shut you down .
The CEA was n't saying that they could n't display product in the hotel suite , but that they had to pay for the privilege .
And $ 10000 plus the cost of the hotel suite is \ _cheap \ _ compared to what it costs to be on the show floor once you factor in the floor space cost , cost of utilities , having to use the expensive show labor , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a NAB exhibitor for more than a decade I can assure you that the same holds true there.
You can show stuff in a hotel suite, even if you're not on the show floor, but you still have to pay NAB or they'll shut you down.
The CEA wasn't saying that they couldn't display product in the hotel suite, but that they had to pay for the privilege.
And $10000 plus the cost of the hotel suite is \_cheap\_ compared to what it costs to be on the show floor once you factor in the floor space cost, cost of utilities, having to use the expensive show labor, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726032</id>
	<title>Bob's Country Bunker</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1263238440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to make a "Bob's Country Bunker" reference, but it would only make sense if you go to the Philly Folk Fest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to make a " Bob 's Country Bunker " reference , but it would only make sense if you go to the Philly Folk Fest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to make a "Bob's Country Bunker" reference, but it would only make sense if you go to the Philly Folk Fest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726336</id>
	<title>I visted vendor room at VMWorld</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263239760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I visted at least four different vendors in their suits at the Venetian and The Palazzo for food, drink, and discussion while at VMWorld in 2008 (one was a large VMWare competitor).  Some of party setups were very elaborate with a rotating guest count of over 50 people.  One of the vendors even brought his own alcohol, although he had to sneak it in his luggage in multiple trips.</p><p>On a side note, I stayed at the Venetian, it is an awesome hotel with very large rooms.  It would have been a decent stay with the exception of the "subtle" flower fragrance they inject in to the ventilation system, it triggered my allergies and brought on repeated use of my inhaler.  I can kind of understand the psychological influence it might have on people gambling on the floor but why did they have to use it in the guest rooms as well?  When I asked about it at the front desk, they acted as if I was the first person ever to complain about that.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I visted at least four different vendors in their suits at the Venetian and The Palazzo for food , drink , and discussion while at VMWorld in 2008 ( one was a large VMWare competitor ) .
Some of party setups were very elaborate with a rotating guest count of over 50 people .
One of the vendors even brought his own alcohol , although he had to sneak it in his luggage in multiple trips.On a side note , I stayed at the Venetian , it is an awesome hotel with very large rooms .
It would have been a decent stay with the exception of the " subtle " flower fragrance they inject in to the ventilation system , it triggered my allergies and brought on repeated use of my inhaler .
I can kind of understand the psychological influence it might have on people gambling on the floor but why did they have to use it in the guest rooms as well ?
When I asked about it at the front desk , they acted as if I was the first person ever to complain about that .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I visted at least four different vendors in their suits at the Venetian and The Palazzo for food, drink, and discussion while at VMWorld in 2008 (one was a large VMWare competitor).
Some of party setups were very elaborate with a rotating guest count of over 50 people.
One of the vendors even brought his own alcohol, although he had to sneak it in his luggage in multiple trips.On a side note, I stayed at the Venetian, it is an awesome hotel with very large rooms.
It would have been a decent stay with the exception of the "subtle" flower fragrance they inject in to the ventilation system, it triggered my allergies and brought on repeated use of my inhaler.
I can kind of understand the psychological influence it might have on people gambling on the floor but why did they have to use it in the guest rooms as well?
When I asked about it at the front desk, they acted as if I was the first person ever to complain about that.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729952</id>
	<title>They agreed to the terms at check-in</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1263208980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have stayed at the Venetian/Palazzo many times.  When you check in, there is a four page agreement that appears on a little LCD screen that you have to sign.  It specifically says you agree not to display merchandise or conduct business in your suite.</p><p>So this entire thread is in the category of Whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have stayed at the Venetian/Palazzo many times .
When you check in , there is a four page agreement that appears on a little LCD screen that you have to sign .
It specifically says you agree not to display merchandise or conduct business in your suite.So this entire thread is in the category of Whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have stayed at the Venetian/Palazzo many times.
When you check in, there is a four page agreement that appears on a little LCD screen that you have to sign.
It specifically says you agree not to display merchandise or conduct business in your suite.So this entire thread is in the category of Whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726486</id>
	<title>Always tip the cleaning staff!</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1263240240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing they got more for turning the guests in than they would have for cleaning the rooms for a couple of days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing they got more for turning the guests in than they would have for cleaning the rooms for a couple of days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing they got more for turning the guests in than they would have for cleaning the rooms for a couple of days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726046</id>
	<title>At first glance I read "Showcasing Warez in Room"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably scared the crap out of the DRM mafia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably scared the crap out of the DRM mafia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably scared the crap out of the DRM mafia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731498</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1263217140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a hotel rents space to an organization that has vendors, either for off site sales or for selling stuff to the people attending, they are contractually bound to prevent other sellers, not affiliated with or paying for booths, from displaying or selling goods. For the record, if your stuff is so good, then market it to the companies individually and properly. Breaking the rules would make me not buy your crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a hotel rents space to an organization that has vendors , either for off site sales or for selling stuff to the people attending , they are contractually bound to prevent other sellers , not affiliated with or paying for booths , from displaying or selling goods .
For the record , if your stuff is so good , then market it to the companies individually and properly .
Breaking the rules would make me not buy your crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a hotel rents space to an organization that has vendors, either for off site sales or for selling stuff to the people attending, they are contractually bound to prevent other sellers, not affiliated with or paying for booths, from displaying or selling goods.
For the record, if your stuff is so good, then market it to the companies individually and properly.
Breaking the rules would make me not buy your crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727030</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>spatley</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is worth noting that the Venetian is also an official CES venue in their convention space so CEA is not just a big pull on the industry, but a big pull on the Venetian for some pretty hefty revenue. This does not take conspiracy theory, this is a corporate entity throwing a small client under the bus to make a gigantic client happy. Standard procedure in big business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worth noting that the Venetian is also an official CES venue in their convention space so CEA is not just a big pull on the industry , but a big pull on the Venetian for some pretty hefty revenue .
This does not take conspiracy theory , this is a corporate entity throwing a small client under the bus to make a gigantic client happy .
Standard procedure in big business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worth noting that the Venetian is also an official CES venue in their convention space so CEA is not just a big pull on the industry, but a big pull on the Venetian for some pretty hefty revenue.
This does not take conspiracy theory, this is a corporate entity throwing a small client under the bus to make a gigantic client happy.
Standard procedure in big business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727680</id>
	<title>May take a while to filter through</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1263200880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While IANAL, it seems to me that the small vendors who were kicked out of the hotels have a claim against the hotels, not against CES. After all, it was hotel management who had them removed.</p><p>So they can sue the hotels, who will then think twice next time about kicking out paying guests. At that point, CES can either<br>-pay off the hotels so they will explicitly not allow the use of the suites as private showrooms<br>-or do nothing, at which point the "parallel tech expo" can happen again.</p><p>I guess this may take two or three years to make its way through the courts, but if a few of the evicted vendors sue, I expect it to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While IANAL , it seems to me that the small vendors who were kicked out of the hotels have a claim against the hotels , not against CES .
After all , it was hotel management who had them removed.So they can sue the hotels , who will then think twice next time about kicking out paying guests .
At that point , CES can either-pay off the hotels so they will explicitly not allow the use of the suites as private showrooms-or do nothing , at which point the " parallel tech expo " can happen again.I guess this may take two or three years to make its way through the courts , but if a few of the evicted vendors sue , I expect it to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While IANAL, it seems to me that the small vendors who were kicked out of the hotels have a claim against the hotels, not against CES.
After all, it was hotel management who had them removed.So they can sue the hotels, who will then think twice next time about kicking out paying guests.
At that point, CES can either-pay off the hotels so they will explicitly not allow the use of the suites as private showrooms-or do nothing, at which point the "parallel tech expo" can happen again.I guess this may take two or three years to make its way through the courts, but if a few of the evicted vendors sue, I expect it to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1263238920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen this as well but I've only seen it as "hospitality suites" in which the vendor has a booth at the show and ALSO setups in their rooms.  These people were trying to piggyback off of CES popularity and get a free ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen this as well but I 've only seen it as " hospitality suites " in which the vendor has a booth at the show and ALSO setups in their rooms .
These people were trying to piggyback off of CES popularity and get a free ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen this as well but I've only seen it as "hospitality suites" in which the vendor has a booth at the show and ALSO setups in their rooms.
These people were trying to piggyback off of CES popularity and get a free ride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727366</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds pretty idiotic to me</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263243120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CEA probably could have saved a lot of grief by warning these vendors ahead of time that it was going to do this sort of thing.</p></div><p>Or, even better, don't be such control freaks. If the *hotel* doesn't care, why should CEA? It's like those homeowner association horror stories you hear about.</p><p>If they need a more expansive view, someone should tell them in a bad economy that allowing the small businesses some slack is a good thing because that's where the job growth is going to happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CEA probably could have saved a lot of grief by warning these vendors ahead of time that it was going to do this sort of thing.Or , even better , do n't be such control freaks .
If the * hotel * does n't care , why should CEA ?
It 's like those homeowner association horror stories you hear about.If they need a more expansive view , someone should tell them in a bad economy that allowing the small businesses some slack is a good thing because that 's where the job growth is going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CEA probably could have saved a lot of grief by warning these vendors ahead of time that it was going to do this sort of thing.Or, even better, don't be such control freaks.
If the *hotel* doesn't care, why should CEA?
It's like those homeowner association horror stories you hear about.If they need a more expansive view, someone should tell them in a bad economy that allowing the small businesses some slack is a good thing because that's where the job growth is going to happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726466</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263240180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we see here is the overreaching arrogance of an organization blinded by the belief that they "own" something that can't be owned: others' right to share their products with an audience. Ironically, the show exists precisely because of all these big and little companies make an effort to show up, pay up, and display their products to an audience.</p><p>Now, the middlemen suddenly believe that they own the process of doing so, and not just the real estate of the showfloor.</p><p>It is crucial how the bullied companies react to this insanity. Ideally, big headlines revealing the evilness and stupidity of CES management, and appropriate lawsuits will provide CES with enough incentive to refrain from bullying their own (potential) clients in the future.</p><p>I can see how scared CES may be of the possibility of a parallel tech expo which they can not monetize on. Wouldn't that be a great idea? Lower participation threshold, more indie companies, diversity, and the possibility of fun with fewer constipated uptight suits in the room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we see here is the overreaching arrogance of an organization blinded by the belief that they " own " something that ca n't be owned : others ' right to share their products with an audience .
Ironically , the show exists precisely because of all these big and little companies make an effort to show up , pay up , and display their products to an audience.Now , the middlemen suddenly believe that they own the process of doing so , and not just the real estate of the showfloor.It is crucial how the bullied companies react to this insanity .
Ideally , big headlines revealing the evilness and stupidity of CES management , and appropriate lawsuits will provide CES with enough incentive to refrain from bullying their own ( potential ) clients in the future.I can see how scared CES may be of the possibility of a parallel tech expo which they can not monetize on .
Would n't that be a great idea ?
Lower participation threshold , more indie companies , diversity , and the possibility of fun with fewer constipated uptight suits in the room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we see here is the overreaching arrogance of an organization blinded by the belief that they "own" something that can't be owned: others' right to share their products with an audience.
Ironically, the show exists precisely because of all these big and little companies make an effort to show up, pay up, and display their products to an audience.Now, the middlemen suddenly believe that they own the process of doing so, and not just the real estate of the showfloor.It is crucial how the bullied companies react to this insanity.
Ideally, big headlines revealing the evilness and stupidity of CES management, and appropriate lawsuits will provide CES with enough incentive to refrain from bullying their own (potential) clients in the future.I can see how scared CES may be of the possibility of a parallel tech expo which they can not monetize on.
Wouldn't that be a great idea?
Lower participation threshold, more indie companies, diversity, and the possibility of fun with fewer constipated uptight suits in the room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726564</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1263240660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These vendors are probably registered at CES as customers rather than getting a booth. They probably have staff wandering around on the floor picking up clients and taking them back to their hotel room. Kind of like high-tech hookers, I guess.</p><p>CES doesn't like customers stealing other customers - they want those customers on the floor looking at the booths that bigger vendors paid big dollars for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These vendors are probably registered at CES as customers rather than getting a booth .
They probably have staff wandering around on the floor picking up clients and taking them back to their hotel room .
Kind of like high-tech hookers , I guess.CES does n't like customers stealing other customers - they want those customers on the floor looking at the booths that bigger vendors paid big dollars for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These vendors are probably registered at CES as customers rather than getting a booth.
They probably have staff wandering around on the floor picking up clients and taking them back to their hotel room.
Kind of like high-tech hookers, I guess.CES doesn't like customers stealing other customers - they want those customers on the floor looking at the booths that bigger vendors paid big dollars for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30744366</id>
	<title>vegas is a corrupt city, everyone knows this</title>
	<author>hardwarefreak</author>
	<datestamp>1263298680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is why Intel, AMD, and other large players get away with the exact behavior that got these little guys kicked out of their hotel rooms.  I've read on various hardware sites over the years of Intel and AMD specifically taking key clients to hotel rooms for private demonstrations of beta hardware platforms.  The only reason CEA (and thus the hotels) lets this slide is because they (Intel and AMD) have massive booths on the floor as well.  So, if you have a booth, you can also do whatever the fuck product demos you want to in as many hotel rooms as you want, as long as you have paid for floor space at the show.  As always, follow the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why Intel , AMD , and other large players get away with the exact behavior that got these little guys kicked out of their hotel rooms .
I 've read on various hardware sites over the years of Intel and AMD specifically taking key clients to hotel rooms for private demonstrations of beta hardware platforms .
The only reason CEA ( and thus the hotels ) lets this slide is because they ( Intel and AMD ) have massive booths on the floor as well .
So , if you have a booth , you can also do whatever the fuck product demos you want to in as many hotel rooms as you want , as long as you have paid for floor space at the show .
As always , follow the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why Intel, AMD, and other large players get away with the exact behavior that got these little guys kicked out of their hotel rooms.
I've read on various hardware sites over the years of Intel and AMD specifically taking key clients to hotel rooms for private demonstrations of beta hardware platforms.
The only reason CEA (and thus the hotels) lets this slide is because they (Intel and AMD) have massive booths on the floor as well.
So, if you have a booth, you can also do whatever the fuck product demos you want to in as many hotel rooms as you want, as long as you have paid for floor space at the show.
As always, follow the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730540</id>
	<title>Re:It's like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problems like this end up being solved by time limits for
sitting.  In California there is also the ubiquitous "WE RESERVE
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" sign.  It probably covers
circumstances like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problems like this end up being solved by time limits for sitting .
In California there is also the ubiquitous " WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE " sign .
It probably covers circumstances like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problems like this end up being solved by time limits for
sitting.
In California there is also the ubiquitous "WE RESERVE
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" sign.
It probably covers
circumstances like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727062</id>
	<title>A warning / refund seems logical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't they simply have warned them and required them to stop or at least refunded there money?

Is it really fair for someone to take your money decide what your doing doesn't suite them and kick you out without so much as a dime in return?

Was there any information up front about product showcasing being against there policies?


*sigh* only in the united states.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they simply have warned them and required them to stop or at least refunded there money ?
Is it really fair for someone to take your money decide what your doing does n't suite them and kick you out without so much as a dime in return ?
Was there any information up front about product showcasing being against there policies ?
* sigh * only in the united states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they simply have warned them and required them to stop or at least refunded there money?
Is it really fair for someone to take your money decide what your doing doesn't suite them and kick you out without so much as a dime in return?
Was there any information up front about product showcasing being against there policies?
*sigh* only in the united states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726796</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>ncohafmuta</author>
	<datestamp>1263241440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm headed out to a show in a few days in LA that I've been invited to a few...last time I was out there, I thought I was meeting up with the pres of an overseas company to see his products, and it ended up being a suite full of scantily dressed hookers and coke. Only speaking broken Japanese, I apologized to the gentleman as I figured I had the wrong room.</p></div><p>wrong room??? what's the right room!?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm headed out to a show in a few days in LA that I 've been invited to a few...last time I was out there , I thought I was meeting up with the pres of an overseas company to see his products , and it ended up being a suite full of scantily dressed hookers and coke .
Only speaking broken Japanese , I apologized to the gentleman as I figured I had the wrong room.wrong room ? ? ?
what 's the right room ! ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm headed out to a show in a few days in LA that I've been invited to a few...last time I was out there, I thought I was meeting up with the pres of an overseas company to see his products, and it ended up being a suite full of scantily dressed hookers and coke.
Only speaking broken Japanese, I apologized to the gentleman as I figured I had the wrong room.wrong room???
what's the right room!?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727198</id>
	<title>CES owns Vegas?</title>
	<author>santiagodraco</author>
	<datestamp>1263242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on CES purchasing controlling rights to the Venetian and Palazzo hotels such that they can control what you can or cannot do in your rented suite!  What's next, you won't be able to fly into Vegas unless you have a CES badge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on CES purchasing controlling rights to the Venetian and Palazzo hotels such that they can control what you can or can not do in your rented suite !
What 's next , you wo n't be able to fly into Vegas unless you have a CES badge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on CES purchasing controlling rights to the Venetian and Palazzo hotels such that they can control what you can or cannot do in your rented suite!
What's next, you won't be able to fly into Vegas unless you have a CES badge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727076</id>
	<title>The idea that...</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1263242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...CES 'kicked people out of hotel suites' is patently delusional. The <b>hotels</b> kicked them out. Random people cannot kick people out of hotel rooms.</p><p>
Whether or not the hotels can do that is a separate point. You cannot just randomly kick people out of their rooms for no reason.</p><p>
While a lot of you are talking about 'changing agreements' after the fact, I'm not entirely certain hotels could actually dictate the purposes for which you could use a hotel room <b>even with</b> a contract in advance.</p><p>
Everyone assuming this is a simple matter of contract law needs to look up 'innkeeper statutes'...people who operate hotels cannot just randomly make whatever rules and regulations they want about residents, even in advance.</p><p>
If I walk up to a hotdog vender, and want to buy a hotdog and have the money, and he doesn't like my hat, he doesn't have to sell me a hotdog. Normal businesses can refuse service to anyone <b>except</b> for specific reasons.</p><p>
If I want up to a hotel, however, and have the money, they <b>do</b> have to give me a room if they have one, <b>unless</b> they think I'm going to use it for some unlawful purposes. Hotels are not like other businesses, they're not even like apartments...they are considered public accommodations, and the reasons you can refuse service are only the reasons specifically outlined in law.(1)</p><p>
There are a lot of other regulations about what 'innkeepers' can, and cannot, do. For example, in most places, they can't actually disallow non-renters from visiting a renter who authorizes them. Your parties have to obey fire code, and cannot be disruptive, but that's it.</p><p>
I know a lot of people assume 'Companies can do anything as long as they say it advance', but 'innkeeping' is actually heavily regulated.</p><p>
Casinos in Vegas have, for exactly this reason, a clearly defined area that is 'the hotel' (Where innkeeping laws hold sway), vs. 'the casino' (Where gambling laws hold), vs. the rentable floor areas (Which are just like renting a warehouse or something) vs. the rest of the building (Which falls more under the 'mall' part of the law, being open to the public.)</p><p>
Oh, and some people may be unaware...The Venetian and The Palazzo are the same building. They are two hotels next to each other, with one casino in the middle of them, and one (huge multi-story) exhibit area behind the casino, along with a bunch of other stuff back there like the Blue Man Group theater. (I stayed at the Venetian once.)</p><p>
1) Someone's about to say 'Hey, didn't hotels used bar unmarried couples from staying, and to have 'house detectives who attempted to make sure that people weren't using hotels for affairs?'. Yes, and having sex outside of marriage <b>used</b> to be illegal, making that being 'using a hotel room for unlawful purposes', until the Supreme Court struck those laws down, and hotels had to stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...CES 'kicked people out of hotel suites ' is patently delusional .
The hotels kicked them out .
Random people can not kick people out of hotel rooms .
Whether or not the hotels can do that is a separate point .
You can not just randomly kick people out of their rooms for no reason .
While a lot of you are talking about 'changing agreements ' after the fact , I 'm not entirely certain hotels could actually dictate the purposes for which you could use a hotel room even with a contract in advance .
Everyone assuming this is a simple matter of contract law needs to look up 'innkeeper statutes'...people who operate hotels can not just randomly make whatever rules and regulations they want about residents , even in advance .
If I walk up to a hotdog vender , and want to buy a hotdog and have the money , and he does n't like my hat , he does n't have to sell me a hotdog .
Normal businesses can refuse service to anyone except for specific reasons .
If I want up to a hotel , however , and have the money , they do have to give me a room if they have one , unless they think I 'm going to use it for some unlawful purposes .
Hotels are not like other businesses , they 're not even like apartments...they are considered public accommodations , and the reasons you can refuse service are only the reasons specifically outlined in law .
( 1 ) There are a lot of other regulations about what 'innkeepers ' can , and can not , do .
For example , in most places , they ca n't actually disallow non-renters from visiting a renter who authorizes them .
Your parties have to obey fire code , and can not be disruptive , but that 's it .
I know a lot of people assume 'Companies can do anything as long as they say it advance ' , but 'innkeeping ' is actually heavily regulated .
Casinos in Vegas have , for exactly this reason , a clearly defined area that is 'the hotel ' ( Where innkeeping laws hold sway ) , vs. 'the casino ' ( Where gambling laws hold ) , vs. the rentable floor areas ( Which are just like renting a warehouse or something ) vs. the rest of the building ( Which falls more under the 'mall ' part of the law , being open to the public .
) Oh , and some people may be unaware...The Venetian and The Palazzo are the same building .
They are two hotels next to each other , with one casino in the middle of them , and one ( huge multi-story ) exhibit area behind the casino , along with a bunch of other stuff back there like the Blue Man Group theater .
( I stayed at the Venetian once .
) 1 ) Someone 's about to say 'Hey , did n't hotels used bar unmarried couples from staying , and to have 'house detectives who attempted to make sure that people were n't using hotels for affairs ? ' .
Yes , and having sex outside of marriage used to be illegal , making that being 'using a hotel room for unlawful purposes ' , until the Supreme Court struck those laws down , and hotels had to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...CES 'kicked people out of hotel suites' is patently delusional.
The hotels kicked them out.
Random people cannot kick people out of hotel rooms.
Whether or not the hotels can do that is a separate point.
You cannot just randomly kick people out of their rooms for no reason.
While a lot of you are talking about 'changing agreements' after the fact, I'm not entirely certain hotels could actually dictate the purposes for which you could use a hotel room even with a contract in advance.
Everyone assuming this is a simple matter of contract law needs to look up 'innkeeper statutes'...people who operate hotels cannot just randomly make whatever rules and regulations they want about residents, even in advance.
If I walk up to a hotdog vender, and want to buy a hotdog and have the money, and he doesn't like my hat, he doesn't have to sell me a hotdog.
Normal businesses can refuse service to anyone except for specific reasons.
If I want up to a hotel, however, and have the money, they do have to give me a room if they have one, unless they think I'm going to use it for some unlawful purposes.
Hotels are not like other businesses, they're not even like apartments...they are considered public accommodations, and the reasons you can refuse service are only the reasons specifically outlined in law.
(1)
There are a lot of other regulations about what 'innkeepers' can, and cannot, do.
For example, in most places, they can't actually disallow non-renters from visiting a renter who authorizes them.
Your parties have to obey fire code, and cannot be disruptive, but that's it.
I know a lot of people assume 'Companies can do anything as long as they say it advance', but 'innkeeping' is actually heavily regulated.
Casinos in Vegas have, for exactly this reason, a clearly defined area that is 'the hotel' (Where innkeeping laws hold sway), vs. 'the casino' (Where gambling laws hold), vs. the rentable floor areas (Which are just like renting a warehouse or something) vs. the rest of the building (Which falls more under the 'mall' part of the law, being open to the public.
)
Oh, and some people may be unaware...The Venetian and The Palazzo are the same building.
They are two hotels next to each other, with one casino in the middle of them, and one (huge multi-story) exhibit area behind the casino, along with a bunch of other stuff back there like the Blue Man Group theater.
(I stayed at the Venetian once.
)
1) Someone's about to say 'Hey, didn't hotels used bar unmarried couples from staying, and to have 'house detectives who attempted to make sure that people weren't using hotels for affairs?'.
Yes, and having sex outside of marriage used to be illegal, making that being 'using a hotel room for unlawful purposes', until the Supreme Court struck those laws down, and hotels had to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730288</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised at all.</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1263210540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>From the Hotel's perspective, the removal makes complete sense. CES is bringing in money to them, paying them to have X amount of floor space, which X floor space would be larger if these small players paid to be on the floor, and are instead paying for just a room.</i> <br> <br>These hotel/casinos make money from *everything*.  They don't lose money on shows, drinks, gambling, rooms, or anything else.  They may have even had a couple vacancies (even if just canceled last minute reservations) and then the profit from the room (and those there have to eat and such, all at massive markups) is better than it being empty.  They didn't do it for that day's profit, they illegally made someone homeless for next year's profit.  The removal makes sense only in the long-term view, and from laws governing lodging, quite probably broke the law to do so.  It will be an issue for the courts (if anyone presses this) to determine if it was the right profit choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Hotel 's perspective , the removal makes complete sense .
CES is bringing in money to them , paying them to have X amount of floor space , which X floor space would be larger if these small players paid to be on the floor , and are instead paying for just a room .
These hotel/casinos make money from * everything * .
They do n't lose money on shows , drinks , gambling , rooms , or anything else .
They may have even had a couple vacancies ( even if just canceled last minute reservations ) and then the profit from the room ( and those there have to eat and such , all at massive markups ) is better than it being empty .
They did n't do it for that day 's profit , they illegally made someone homeless for next year 's profit .
The removal makes sense only in the long-term view , and from laws governing lodging , quite probably broke the law to do so .
It will be an issue for the courts ( if anyone presses this ) to determine if it was the right profit choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Hotel's perspective, the removal makes complete sense.
CES is bringing in money to them, paying them to have X amount of floor space, which X floor space would be larger if these small players paid to be on the floor, and are instead paying for just a room.
These hotel/casinos make money from *everything*.
They don't lose money on shows, drinks, gambling, rooms, or anything else.
They may have even had a couple vacancies (even if just canceled last minute reservations) and then the profit from the room (and those there have to eat and such, all at massive markups) is better than it being empty.
They didn't do it for that day's profit, they illegally made someone homeless for next year's profit.
The removal makes sense only in the long-term view, and from laws governing lodging, quite probably broke the law to do so.
It will be an issue for the courts (if anyone presses this) to determine if it was the right profit choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30734918</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>MattskEE</author>
	<datestamp>1263295020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your point of view is not unreasonable, but I see it as just being business and capitalism in action.  <br> <br>

If organizers of any trade show or convention want to ensure that ALL vendors in the hotel purchase the pricey booths in the convention hall, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to ask a hotel to make that their policy during the show.  It would then be written into the contract that both parties sign.  Then the hotel could make it a POLICY which they DISCLOSE to guests before they pay for their room.  <br> <br>

Because this would be a restrictive policy which would realistically inconvenience many hotel guests and the hotel staff, the hotel will be able to command a higher price from trade show customers who want such a clause enforced.  And while this may also be seen as an unpopular move by small companies and some convention go-ers who like having the small companies around as well as large ones, it would at least be fair.<br> <br>

Note that in this particular case, according to the article, the hotel specifically told guests who inquired ahead of time that meeting with customers and showcasing products in hotel rooms would be allowed, within normal room occupancy restrictions.  This is the key point.  Based solely on the DailyTech article, and IANAL, it has some of the makings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait\_and\_switch" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bait and Switch</a> [wikipedia.org], which is fraud, because the vendor mentioned was able to stay in the hotel only after paying an additional $10,000 to a third party (CEA).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point of view is not unreasonable , but I see it as just being business and capitalism in action .
If organizers of any trade show or convention want to ensure that ALL vendors in the hotel purchase the pricey booths in the convention hall , then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to ask a hotel to make that their policy during the show .
It would then be written into the contract that both parties sign .
Then the hotel could make it a POLICY which they DISCLOSE to guests before they pay for their room .
Because this would be a restrictive policy which would realistically inconvenience many hotel guests and the hotel staff , the hotel will be able to command a higher price from trade show customers who want such a clause enforced .
And while this may also be seen as an unpopular move by small companies and some convention go-ers who like having the small companies around as well as large ones , it would at least be fair .
Note that in this particular case , according to the article , the hotel specifically told guests who inquired ahead of time that meeting with customers and showcasing products in hotel rooms would be allowed , within normal room occupancy restrictions .
This is the key point .
Based solely on the DailyTech article , and IANAL , it has some of the makings of Bait and Switch [ wikipedia.org ] , which is fraud , because the vendor mentioned was able to stay in the hotel only after paying an additional $ 10,000 to a third party ( CEA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point of view is not unreasonable, but I see it as just being business and capitalism in action.
If organizers of any trade show or convention want to ensure that ALL vendors in the hotel purchase the pricey booths in the convention hall, then it would be perfectly reasonable for them to ask a hotel to make that their policy during the show.
It would then be written into the contract that both parties sign.
Then the hotel could make it a POLICY which they DISCLOSE to guests before they pay for their room.
Because this would be a restrictive policy which would realistically inconvenience many hotel guests and the hotel staff, the hotel will be able to command a higher price from trade show customers who want such a clause enforced.
And while this may also be seen as an unpopular move by small companies and some convention go-ers who like having the small companies around as well as large ones, it would at least be fair.
Note that in this particular case, according to the article, the hotel specifically told guests who inquired ahead of time that meeting with customers and showcasing products in hotel rooms would be allowed, within normal room occupancy restrictions.
This is the key point.
Based solely on the DailyTech article, and IANAL, it has some of the makings of Bait and Switch [wikipedia.org], which is fraud, because the vendor mentioned was able to stay in the hotel only after paying an additional $10,000 to a third party (CEA).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733080</id>
	<title>Re:does AVN have the same rules?</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1263228960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>quote[maybe the demo was a rogue AVN guest and not CES?]/quote<br><br>don't you mean around 30 rouge AVN guests???</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>quote [ maybe the demo was a rogue AVN guest and not CES ?
] /quotedo n't you mean around 30 rouge AVN guests ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quote[maybe the demo was a rogue AVN guest and not CES?
]/quotedon't you mean around 30 rouge AVN guests??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727252</id>
	<title>Contracts anyone?</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1263242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I am not a lawyer, take all this with a block of salt.</p><p>It's all about the room contract.  I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel.  If so a review of the contract is in order.</p><p>It's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel, but unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed it's still a moot point.</p><p>It's also possible that CEA bought blocks of rooms (not reserved, purchased) and sold them directly to the small companies.  If so the contracts between CEA and the small companies are probably in force.  A good reading is still in order as it's hard to tell if there's anything in there about it.</p><p>If the contracts don't go your way then you might consider getting into he said / he said with hotel staff.  And get out your wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I am not a lawyer , take all this with a block of salt.It 's all about the room contract .
I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel .
If so a review of the contract is in order.It 's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel , but unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed it 's still a moot point.It 's also possible that CEA bought blocks of rooms ( not reserved , purchased ) and sold them directly to the small companies .
If so the contracts between CEA and the small companies are probably in force .
A good reading is still in order as it 's hard to tell if there 's anything in there about it.If the contracts do n't go your way then you might consider getting into he said / he said with hotel staff .
And get out your wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I am not a lawyer, take all this with a block of salt.It's all about the room contract.
I assume the room contracts were between the small companies and the hotel.
If so a review of the contract is in order.It's possible that CEA had a contract with the hotel, but unless the hotel rewrote the contracts the small companies signed it's still a moot point.It's also possible that CEA bought blocks of rooms (not reserved, purchased) and sold them directly to the small companies.
If so the contracts between CEA and the small companies are probably in force.
A good reading is still in order as it's hard to tell if there's anything in there about it.If the contracts don't go your way then you might consider getting into he said / he said with hotel staff.
And get out your wallet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733666</id>
	<title>From a convention organizer's perspective....</title>
	<author>RubberDogBone</author>
	<datestamp>1263234540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see how this would happen.  Until last year, I was a very very high up at a relatively large-ish convention.  About 15,000 attendees.  We took up a convention center, a main hotel and about a dozen secondary hotels, plus filled many tertiary hotels which we didn't "control" in any way.</p><p>Anyhow, the deal with the main hotel was that the convention got control of all the suites.  Period. I used to have one for my personal use which was a nice perk.   We used the rest for other VIPs.  We also got control of all the regular rooms. Our room block was the whole freaking hotel.  We had total access to the reservation list for each room.</p><p>Regular people who wanted suites were completely shut out. Likewise, outside vendors were also shut out of using one of the suites.  We didn't have a lot of demand for that, but we did have vendors trying to sell out of their rooms.  After all a hotel room was much cheaper than signing up as one of our official exhibitors and in theory would be free of our content restrictions.</p><p>The problem was that they -and for that matter official exhibitors too- were not allowed to sell anything from the hotel rooms.  You can entertain.  You can display stuff on a very limited basis, but no selling.  The hotel forbade that on rules that had to do with pandering but also applied to merchandise sales. We had people who broke that rule and the hotel did kick them out.  They didn't ask us first.  They just kicked them out right away.</p><p>We as the client had total control, but it was still their hotel and their rules.  IF we had gone to the hotel manager and said "That guy in 1404 is a problem.  Make him go away." I am sure it would have happened.   We never really had to.</p><p>It's also worth noting that hotel managers and front desk staff swap shifts from day to day.   It is entirely possible to check in and bring in a big even on (say) a Thursday and by Sunday when you are wrapping up, the people at the front desk have NO clue who you are and no understanding that you just booked their hotel solid for a week and wrote them a fat check.</p><p>It's possible the companies in this case talked to manager A, who OKed it.  But weekend manager B came in and shut the thing down.</p><p>What SHOULD have happened is that the exhibitor companies should have gone through the hotel sales office and gotten a contract and BEO and all that fun stuff.  At that point, there's a paper trail.  Doesn't mean the hotel will not cheat you.  They could.  But booking a regular suite without that and risking your business's entire CES marketing venture on it... wow.   Risky.  It sounds like it bit some folks this year.  CES has made some examples for next year's booking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see how this would happen .
Until last year , I was a very very high up at a relatively large-ish convention .
About 15,000 attendees .
We took up a convention center , a main hotel and about a dozen secondary hotels , plus filled many tertiary hotels which we did n't " control " in any way.Anyhow , the deal with the main hotel was that the convention got control of all the suites .
Period. I used to have one for my personal use which was a nice perk .
We used the rest for other VIPs .
We also got control of all the regular rooms .
Our room block was the whole freaking hotel .
We had total access to the reservation list for each room.Regular people who wanted suites were completely shut out .
Likewise , outside vendors were also shut out of using one of the suites .
We did n't have a lot of demand for that , but we did have vendors trying to sell out of their rooms .
After all a hotel room was much cheaper than signing up as one of our official exhibitors and in theory would be free of our content restrictions.The problem was that they -and for that matter official exhibitors too- were not allowed to sell anything from the hotel rooms .
You can entertain .
You can display stuff on a very limited basis , but no selling .
The hotel forbade that on rules that had to do with pandering but also applied to merchandise sales .
We had people who broke that rule and the hotel did kick them out .
They did n't ask us first .
They just kicked them out right away.We as the client had total control , but it was still their hotel and their rules .
IF we had gone to the hotel manager and said " That guy in 1404 is a problem .
Make him go away .
" I am sure it would have happened .
We never really had to.It 's also worth noting that hotel managers and front desk staff swap shifts from day to day .
It is entirely possible to check in and bring in a big even on ( say ) a Thursday and by Sunday when you are wrapping up , the people at the front desk have NO clue who you are and no understanding that you just booked their hotel solid for a week and wrote them a fat check.It 's possible the companies in this case talked to manager A , who OKed it .
But weekend manager B came in and shut the thing down.What SHOULD have happened is that the exhibitor companies should have gone through the hotel sales office and gotten a contract and BEO and all that fun stuff .
At that point , there 's a paper trail .
Does n't mean the hotel will not cheat you .
They could .
But booking a regular suite without that and risking your business 's entire CES marketing venture on it... wow. Risky .
It sounds like it bit some folks this year .
CES has made some examples for next year 's booking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see how this would happen.
Until last year, I was a very very high up at a relatively large-ish convention.
About 15,000 attendees.
We took up a convention center, a main hotel and about a dozen secondary hotels, plus filled many tertiary hotels which we didn't "control" in any way.Anyhow, the deal with the main hotel was that the convention got control of all the suites.
Period. I used to have one for my personal use which was a nice perk.
We used the rest for other VIPs.
We also got control of all the regular rooms.
Our room block was the whole freaking hotel.
We had total access to the reservation list for each room.Regular people who wanted suites were completely shut out.
Likewise, outside vendors were also shut out of using one of the suites.
We didn't have a lot of demand for that, but we did have vendors trying to sell out of their rooms.
After all a hotel room was much cheaper than signing up as one of our official exhibitors and in theory would be free of our content restrictions.The problem was that they -and for that matter official exhibitors too- were not allowed to sell anything from the hotel rooms.
You can entertain.
You can display stuff on a very limited basis, but no selling.
The hotel forbade that on rules that had to do with pandering but also applied to merchandise sales.
We had people who broke that rule and the hotel did kick them out.
They didn't ask us first.
They just kicked them out right away.We as the client had total control, but it was still their hotel and their rules.
IF we had gone to the hotel manager and said "That guy in 1404 is a problem.
Make him go away.
" I am sure it would have happened.
We never really had to.It's also worth noting that hotel managers and front desk staff swap shifts from day to day.
It is entirely possible to check in and bring in a big even on (say) a Thursday and by Sunday when you are wrapping up, the people at the front desk have NO clue who you are and no understanding that you just booked their hotel solid for a week and wrote them a fat check.It's possible the companies in this case talked to manager A, who OKed it.
But weekend manager B came in and shut the thing down.What SHOULD have happened is that the exhibitor companies should have gone through the hotel sales office and gotten a contract and BEO and all that fun stuff.
At that point, there's a paper trail.
Doesn't mean the hotel will not cheat you.
They could.
But booking a regular suite without that and risking your business's entire CES marketing venture on it... wow.   Risky.
It sounds like it bit some folks this year.
CES has made some examples for next year's booking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726582</id>
	<title>I first misread title...</title>
	<author>Nomaxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1263240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as "Vendors Kicked Out of Hotels For Showcasing Whores in Room".</htmltext>
<tokenext>as " Vendors Kicked Out of Hotels For Showcasing Whores in Room " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as "Vendors Kicked Out of Hotels For Showcasing Whores in Room".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727892</id>
	<title>Re:In FreeMarket America...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Competition?</p><p>*laughing*</p><p>Way to miss the point entirely, genius.  You've been suckered.</p><p>Try this:  Works As Intended.</p><p>The show is designed for those with the money and market-power to deliver, not for those that cannot even afford the floorspace.  This *is* competition.  "America" had nothing to do with it.  The Feds weren't called in, the police were not involved....it was, in fact, an almost perfect excersice of private property rights and the economics of size and market.  When those little guys hit on something worth being shown @ CES (I.E, when they gain the money and market power to be able to afford floorspace), they can participate.</p><p>Compatition!=a level playing field.  In fact, it directly opposes a level playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Competition ?
* laughing * Way to miss the point entirely , genius .
You 've been suckered.Try this : Works As Intended.The show is designed for those with the money and market-power to deliver , not for those that can not even afford the floorspace .
This * is * competition .
" America " had nothing to do with it .
The Feds were n't called in , the police were not involved....it was , in fact , an almost perfect excersice of private property rights and the economics of size and market .
When those little guys hit on something worth being shown @ CES ( I.E , when they gain the money and market power to be able to afford floorspace ) , they can participate.Compatition ! = a level playing field .
In fact , it directly opposes a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Competition?
*laughing*Way to miss the point entirely, genius.
You've been suckered.Try this:  Works As Intended.The show is designed for those with the money and market-power to deliver, not for those that cannot even afford the floorspace.
This *is* competition.
"America" had nothing to do with it.
The Feds weren't called in, the police were not involved....it was, in fact, an almost perfect excersice of private property rights and the economics of size and market.
When those little guys hit on something worth being shown @ CES (I.E, when they gain the money and market power to be able to afford floorspace), they can participate.Compatition!=a level playing field.
In fact, it directly opposes a level playing field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726460</id>
	<title>There are definately 2 sides to this</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1263240180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One side is basically CEA not getting their dues.  Setting up shop in a suite is essentially similar to setting up a small booth for the price of a suite and food.
<br> <br>
How fair is it to the other companies that had to pay the dues that there are companies displaying products without paying the 10,000 fee?
<br> <br>
Me, personally, I am an indie game developer.  I am sure you have all heard of me.  What?  You have not heard of me?  That is probably because I do not have the money to pay to get myself publicity through channels such as E3 or other means like that.  I can see where the publicity is good for the people that do not have the money.
<br> <br>
One thing I did not see mentioned: Did these smaller companies make previous arrangements with CEA before booking the suites to show their products?  If they DID make previous arrangements with CEA to display their items at CES and then just did not pay the fees, and instead just held their own display in a suite, than that is wrong.
<br> <br>
They also do not state what kind of suites these guys were staying in.  It could have been the cheap 150 a night rooms, or it could have been a penthouse.  That piece of information also makes a difference.  Let me explain: a penthouse is super expensive.  I am sure if you shopped around, you could finda penthouse for 1000 a night.  Let's see, one week is 7 days, which is 7000 if you do good shopping.  If you can afford that, then save a little more and you will be good to display.
<br> <br>
Like I said, it truly depends on a couple factors: were they displaying this stuff in nice suites that could help prove that they could have afforded the 10,000 if they had gotten cheaper rooms?  Did they make previous arrangements with CEA and then display items in their rooms?
<br> <br>
There is just too much information left out of this and it is clearly one sided with the lack of information.
<br> <br>
One of the sources asked if there were any restrictions to being in the room, but if I were to call one of those places right now and ask what restrictions I had for a show, the hotel clerk may not be able to realize that I am actually a business.
<br> <br>
Do not get me wrong, I am not one sided here.  I come from the side of the person that would be paying for the $150 room and not being able to afford the 10,000 fee.  With how many small companies they said had to leave (I think it was around 30), that means that there is an incredibly small chance that all of those companies were staying in Presidential Suites or something like that.
<br> <br>
Also, somebody else in the comments pointed out that hotel room showings were pretty standard and normal for these shows.  That is where it does flip the script a little bit.
<br> <br>
I am saying that this sucks for both sides.  The smaller companies have to pack up their stuff when they have been accustomed to being able to do the hotel room showings and not told ahead of time that they can't do them.
<br>
On the same note: I am sure it is not cheap to be able to take over a portion of Vegas to throw together a massive show like CES.  Where does that money come from?  I bet alot of that money comes from vendor fees.  If 30 vendors did not pay the fee, that is $300,000 that CEA could use to continue the show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One side is basically CEA not getting their dues .
Setting up shop in a suite is essentially similar to setting up a small booth for the price of a suite and food .
How fair is it to the other companies that had to pay the dues that there are companies displaying products without paying the 10,000 fee ?
Me , personally , I am an indie game developer .
I am sure you have all heard of me .
What ? You have not heard of me ?
That is probably because I do not have the money to pay to get myself publicity through channels such as E3 or other means like that .
I can see where the publicity is good for the people that do not have the money .
One thing I did not see mentioned : Did these smaller companies make previous arrangements with CEA before booking the suites to show their products ?
If they DID make previous arrangements with CEA to display their items at CES and then just did not pay the fees , and instead just held their own display in a suite , than that is wrong .
They also do not state what kind of suites these guys were staying in .
It could have been the cheap 150 a night rooms , or it could have been a penthouse .
That piece of information also makes a difference .
Let me explain : a penthouse is super expensive .
I am sure if you shopped around , you could finda penthouse for 1000 a night .
Let 's see , one week is 7 days , which is 7000 if you do good shopping .
If you can afford that , then save a little more and you will be good to display .
Like I said , it truly depends on a couple factors : were they displaying this stuff in nice suites that could help prove that they could have afforded the 10,000 if they had gotten cheaper rooms ?
Did they make previous arrangements with CEA and then display items in their rooms ?
There is just too much information left out of this and it is clearly one sided with the lack of information .
One of the sources asked if there were any restrictions to being in the room , but if I were to call one of those places right now and ask what restrictions I had for a show , the hotel clerk may not be able to realize that I am actually a business .
Do not get me wrong , I am not one sided here .
I come from the side of the person that would be paying for the $ 150 room and not being able to afford the 10,000 fee .
With how many small companies they said had to leave ( I think it was around 30 ) , that means that there is an incredibly small chance that all of those companies were staying in Presidential Suites or something like that .
Also , somebody else in the comments pointed out that hotel room showings were pretty standard and normal for these shows .
That is where it does flip the script a little bit .
I am saying that this sucks for both sides .
The smaller companies have to pack up their stuff when they have been accustomed to being able to do the hotel room showings and not told ahead of time that they ca n't do them .
On the same note : I am sure it is not cheap to be able to take over a portion of Vegas to throw together a massive show like CES .
Where does that money come from ?
I bet alot of that money comes from vendor fees .
If 30 vendors did not pay the fee , that is $ 300,000 that CEA could use to continue the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One side is basically CEA not getting their dues.
Setting up shop in a suite is essentially similar to setting up a small booth for the price of a suite and food.
How fair is it to the other companies that had to pay the dues that there are companies displaying products without paying the 10,000 fee?
Me, personally, I am an indie game developer.
I am sure you have all heard of me.
What?  You have not heard of me?
That is probably because I do not have the money to pay to get myself publicity through channels such as E3 or other means like that.
I can see where the publicity is good for the people that do not have the money.
One thing I did not see mentioned: Did these smaller companies make previous arrangements with CEA before booking the suites to show their products?
If they DID make previous arrangements with CEA to display their items at CES and then just did not pay the fees, and instead just held their own display in a suite, than that is wrong.
They also do not state what kind of suites these guys were staying in.
It could have been the cheap 150 a night rooms, or it could have been a penthouse.
That piece of information also makes a difference.
Let me explain: a penthouse is super expensive.
I am sure if you shopped around, you could finda penthouse for 1000 a night.
Let's see, one week is 7 days, which is 7000 if you do good shopping.
If you can afford that, then save a little more and you will be good to display.
Like I said, it truly depends on a couple factors: were they displaying this stuff in nice suites that could help prove that they could have afforded the 10,000 if they had gotten cheaper rooms?
Did they make previous arrangements with CEA and then display items in their rooms?
There is just too much information left out of this and it is clearly one sided with the lack of information.
One of the sources asked if there were any restrictions to being in the room, but if I were to call one of those places right now and ask what restrictions I had for a show, the hotel clerk may not be able to realize that I am actually a business.
Do not get me wrong, I am not one sided here.
I come from the side of the person that would be paying for the $150 room and not being able to afford the 10,000 fee.
With how many small companies they said had to leave (I think it was around 30), that means that there is an incredibly small chance that all of those companies were staying in Presidential Suites or something like that.
Also, somebody else in the comments pointed out that hotel room showings were pretty standard and normal for these shows.
That is where it does flip the script a little bit.
I am saying that this sucks for both sides.
The smaller companies have to pack up their stuff when they have been accustomed to being able to do the hotel room showings and not told ahead of time that they can't do them.
On the same note: I am sure it is not cheap to be able to take over a portion of Vegas to throw together a massive show like CES.
Where does that money come from?
I bet alot of that money comes from vendor fees.
If 30 vendors did not pay the fee, that is $300,000 that CEA could use to continue the show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726142</id>
	<title>Vegas mafia strikes again!</title>
	<author>sageres</author>
	<datestamp>1263238920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In Vegas, everybody's gotta watch everybody else. Since the players are looking to beat the casino, the dealers are watching the players. The box men are watching the dealers. The floor men are watching the box men. The pit bosses are watching the floor men. The shift bosses are watching the pit bosses. The casino manager is watching the shift bosses. I'm watching the casino manager. And the eye-in-the-sky is watching us all."

Casino (1995), Robert De Niro as Sam "Ace" Rothstein:</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In Vegas , everybody 's got ta watch everybody else .
Since the players are looking to beat the casino , the dealers are watching the players .
The box men are watching the dealers .
The floor men are watching the box men .
The pit bosses are watching the floor men .
The shift bosses are watching the pit bosses .
The casino manager is watching the shift bosses .
I 'm watching the casino manager .
And the eye-in-the-sky is watching us all .
" Casino ( 1995 ) , Robert De Niro as Sam " Ace " Rothstein :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In Vegas, everybody's gotta watch everybody else.
Since the players are looking to beat the casino, the dealers are watching the players.
The box men are watching the dealers.
The floor men are watching the box men.
The pit bosses are watching the floor men.
The shift bosses are watching the pit bosses.
The casino manager is watching the shift bosses.
I'm watching the casino manager.
And the eye-in-the-sky is watching us all.
"

Casino (1995), Robert De Niro as Sam "Ace" Rothstein:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729130</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>CEA is becoming more and more like the IOC: money whoring an event that used to be fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CEA is becoming more and more like the IOC : money whoring an event that used to be fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CEA is becoming more and more like the IOC: money whoring an event that used to be fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727364</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1263243060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>The stuff going on at the Venetian was open door rooms, you walk room to room looking at audio gear.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff going on at the Venetian was open door rooms , you walk room to room looking at audio gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff going on at the Venetian was open door rooms, you walk room to room looking at audio gear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30743926</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>eschasi</author>
	<datestamp>1263296640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What part of the summary "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite. They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties. They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product" was unclear? It <b>was</b> OK with hotel management. </p></div><p>I agree these guys got blindsided by whoever they spoke to. But time and again I've seen cases where the guest says "your guy said it was OK" (and actually had it in writing) and the hotel manager said (politely) "I'm sorry, but he was wrong" and held up the regulation (local, state, hotel-specific, whatever).

If the guy was lucky enough to get it in writing, the hotel typically offers something back on the room or does their best to accommodate. Good places do that. Bad places don't. But as long as the hotel has written policy on its side (and I'll betcha the Vegas hotels do, in this case), the guest will ultimately lose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of the summary " I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite .
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties .
They did n't say there were any limitations on displaying product " was unclear ?
It was OK with hotel management .
I agree these guys got blindsided by whoever they spoke to .
But time and again I 've seen cases where the guest says " your guy said it was OK " ( and actually had it in writing ) and the hotel manager said ( politely ) " I 'm sorry , but he was wrong " and held up the regulation ( local , state , hotel-specific , whatever ) .
If the guy was lucky enough to get it in writing , the hotel typically offers something back on the room or does their best to accommodate .
Good places do that .
Bad places do n't .
But as long as the hotel has written policy on its side ( and I 'll betcha the Vegas hotels do , in this case ) , the guest will ultimately lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of the summary "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties.
They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product" was unclear?
It was OK with hotel management.
I agree these guys got blindsided by whoever they spoke to.
But time and again I've seen cases where the guest says "your guy said it was OK" (and actually had it in writing) and the hotel manager said (politely) "I'm sorry, but he was wrong" and held up the regulation (local, state, hotel-specific, whatever).
If the guy was lucky enough to get it in writing, the hotel typically offers something back on the room or does their best to accommodate.
Good places do that.
Bad places don't.
But as long as the hotel has written policy on its side (and I'll betcha the Vegas hotels do, in this case), the guest will ultimately lose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1263238860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean I'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management.</p></div><p>What part of the summary "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite. They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties. They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product" was unclear? It <b>was</b> OK with hotel management. </p><p>There is no way anyone should have modded you up and I'm publicly asking people to mod you down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean I 'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management.What part of the summary " I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite .
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties .
They did n't say there were any limitations on displaying product " was unclear ?
It was OK with hotel management .
There is no way anyone should have modded you up and I 'm publicly asking people to mod you down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean I'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management.What part of the summary "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties.
They didn't say there were any limitations on displaying product" was unclear?
It was OK with hotel management.
There is no way anyone should have modded you up and I'm publicly asking people to mod you down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727120</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>mmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1263242520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, not a free ride. If you rented a suite during CES, especially close to any of the venues, I can guarantee you paid out the ass for it.<br>Free ride? No way.</p><p>Now, CES a-holes didn't get their pound of flesh, but it isn't theirs to take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , not a free ride .
If you rented a suite during CES , especially close to any of the venues , I can guarantee you paid out the ass for it.Free ride ?
No way.Now , CES a-holes did n't get their pound of flesh , but it is n't theirs to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, not a free ride.
If you rented a suite during CES, especially close to any of the venues, I can guarantee you paid out the ass for it.Free ride?
No way.Now, CES a-holes didn't get their pound of flesh, but it isn't theirs to take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726366</id>
	<title>Almost certainly the hotel really had restrictions</title>
	<author>PatMcGee</author>
	<datestamp>1263239820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen this happen with Siggraph. The contract that Siggraph had with the hotels said that no vendor suites would be allowed for display of products or meetings with actual or prospective customers without explicit written permission from Siggraph management. All vendor suites had to be booked through Siggraph.<br> <br>

In, I think 1994, several vendors had such suites and publicized them at the exhibition. Siggraph management charged the hotel the standard suite fee for each of those vendor suites. Collected it too. I don't know if the hotels managed to get it back from the vendors or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen this happen with Siggraph .
The contract that Siggraph had with the hotels said that no vendor suites would be allowed for display of products or meetings with actual or prospective customers without explicit written permission from Siggraph management .
All vendor suites had to be booked through Siggraph .
In , I think 1994 , several vendors had such suites and publicized them at the exhibition .
Siggraph management charged the hotel the standard suite fee for each of those vendor suites .
Collected it too .
I do n't know if the hotels managed to get it back from the vendors or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen this happen with Siggraph.
The contract that Siggraph had with the hotels said that no vendor suites would be allowed for display of products or meetings with actual or prospective customers without explicit written permission from Siggraph management.
All vendor suites had to be booked through Siggraph.
In, I think 1994, several vendors had such suites and publicized them at the exhibition.
Siggraph management charged the hotel the standard suite fee for each of those vendor suites.
Collected it too.
I don't know if the hotels managed to get it back from the vendors or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726398</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty disgusting</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1263239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They're probably desperate from the declining numbers, and revenue, and are in financial trouble."</p><p>Them and half of the United States small businesses and local, state and Federal government.</p><p>It tisn't going to get better any time soon either.</p><p>-Hack</p><p>PS: Unless of course your a bank or Wall Street which is currently in the middle of another Ponzi scheme with the market going up, and everything else going down the crapper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 're probably desperate from the declining numbers , and revenue , and are in financial trouble .
" Them and half of the United States small businesses and local , state and Federal government.It t is n't going to get better any time soon either.-HackPS : Unless of course your a bank or Wall Street which is currently in the middle of another Ponzi scheme with the market going up , and everything else going down the crapper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They're probably desperate from the declining numbers, and revenue, and are in financial trouble.
"Them and half of the United States small businesses and local, state and Federal government.It tisn't going to get better any time soon either.-HackPS: Unless of course your a bank or Wall Street which is currently in the middle of another Ponzi scheme with the market going up, and everything else going down the crapper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727888</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>shark72</author>
	<datestamp>1263201540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"I know CES doesn't want to lose money, but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths. Intel isn't going to bring people back to a hotel room, and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be, whether they're in their room or on the floor."</i> </p><p>This is not completely accurate. Plenty of mid- to large-size companies are pulling out of the LVCC, too. It's getting harder and harder for the CEA to sell floor space. The spaces vacated by companies going to booths is NOT all being taken up by other companies. If it were, there would not be a problem -- but that's just not the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I know CES does n't want to lose money , but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths .
Intel is n't going to bring people back to a hotel room , and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be , whether they 're in their room or on the floor .
" This is not completely accurate .
Plenty of mid- to large-size companies are pulling out of the LVCC , too .
It 's getting harder and harder for the CEA to sell floor space .
The spaces vacated by companies going to booths is NOT all being taken up by other companies .
If it were , there would not be a problem -- but that 's just not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "I know CES doesn't want to lose money, but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths.
Intel isn't going to bring people back to a hotel room, and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be, whether they're in their room or on the floor.
" This is not completely accurate.
Plenty of mid- to large-size companies are pulling out of the LVCC, too.
It's getting harder and harder for the CEA to sell floor space.
The spaces vacated by companies going to booths is NOT all being taken up by other companies.
If it were, there would not be a problem -- but that's just not the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727260</id>
	<title>Pretty Standard Practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, not allowing vendors to basically set up shop in their hotel rooms is pretty standard practice. The exclusion is likely in the hotel's fine print and/or part of city ordinances. In fact, the practice of bypassing the show floor on the cheap is so common in the trade show industry, there's a name for it. It's called suitcasing and most conventions have agreements with the hotels their attendees stay in that stipulate they will ask suitcasing vendors to leave. In fact, it's common to not even allow the companies that ARE exhibiting to set up additional space in their hotel rooms. They can have hospitality suites, and bring clients up for a drink and the like. But setting up your room as an exhibition suite is typically frowned upon and even the hotels, despite their desire for revenue, are reluctant to help suitcasers because it's more wear and tear on a typical room (which is why they charge for their event space). It also puts them at odds with the show organizer because they are basically contributing to the demise of that show. If every exhibitor can take a suite (at reduced cost to them but also reduced revenue to the show organizer), eventually the show goes away. This has happened before and, just as in BSG, it shall happen again.</p><p>Think of it this way. Your company (most likely a non-profit, not some big conglom) just spent millions of dollars on advertising, registration systems, staff, etc to entice companies from all over the world to come to your trade show. And many companies, some of them startups where the show is a make or break moment for them, paid thousands of dollars to take a booth, maybe sponsor an event or put up some ads touting their new product. Along comes a company that decides it's going to take advantage of all the dollars the trade show  organizer and its exhibitors just spent to get everyone in one place at one time. Instead of participating on the show floor (and thereby adding revenue to the organization that got everyone there to begin with), they tell people to meet them in their hotel room.</p><p>Watch how quickly a show like CES (or Comicon or AVN) would go away if this sort of thing were left unchecked. You can argue the logic, but you can't say it's not standard or unusual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , not allowing vendors to basically set up shop in their hotel rooms is pretty standard practice .
The exclusion is likely in the hotel 's fine print and/or part of city ordinances .
In fact , the practice of bypassing the show floor on the cheap is so common in the trade show industry , there 's a name for it .
It 's called suitcasing and most conventions have agreements with the hotels their attendees stay in that stipulate they will ask suitcasing vendors to leave .
In fact , it 's common to not even allow the companies that ARE exhibiting to set up additional space in their hotel rooms .
They can have hospitality suites , and bring clients up for a drink and the like .
But setting up your room as an exhibition suite is typically frowned upon and even the hotels , despite their desire for revenue , are reluctant to help suitcasers because it 's more wear and tear on a typical room ( which is why they charge for their event space ) .
It also puts them at odds with the show organizer because they are basically contributing to the demise of that show .
If every exhibitor can take a suite ( at reduced cost to them but also reduced revenue to the show organizer ) , eventually the show goes away .
This has happened before and , just as in BSG , it shall happen again.Think of it this way .
Your company ( most likely a non-profit , not some big conglom ) just spent millions of dollars on advertising , registration systems , staff , etc to entice companies from all over the world to come to your trade show .
And many companies , some of them startups where the show is a make or break moment for them , paid thousands of dollars to take a booth , maybe sponsor an event or put up some ads touting their new product .
Along comes a company that decides it 's going to take advantage of all the dollars the trade show organizer and its exhibitors just spent to get everyone in one place at one time .
Instead of participating on the show floor ( and thereby adding revenue to the organization that got everyone there to begin with ) , they tell people to meet them in their hotel room.Watch how quickly a show like CES ( or Comicon or AVN ) would go away if this sort of thing were left unchecked .
You can argue the logic , but you ca n't say it 's not standard or unusual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, not allowing vendors to basically set up shop in their hotel rooms is pretty standard practice.
The exclusion is likely in the hotel's fine print and/or part of city ordinances.
In fact, the practice of bypassing the show floor on the cheap is so common in the trade show industry, there's a name for it.
It's called suitcasing and most conventions have agreements with the hotels their attendees stay in that stipulate they will ask suitcasing vendors to leave.
In fact, it's common to not even allow the companies that ARE exhibiting to set up additional space in their hotel rooms.
They can have hospitality suites, and bring clients up for a drink and the like.
But setting up your room as an exhibition suite is typically frowned upon and even the hotels, despite their desire for revenue, are reluctant to help suitcasers because it's more wear and tear on a typical room (which is why they charge for their event space).
It also puts them at odds with the show organizer because they are basically contributing to the demise of that show.
If every exhibitor can take a suite (at reduced cost to them but also reduced revenue to the show organizer), eventually the show goes away.
This has happened before and, just as in BSG, it shall happen again.Think of it this way.
Your company (most likely a non-profit, not some big conglom) just spent millions of dollars on advertising, registration systems, staff, etc to entice companies from all over the world to come to your trade show.
And many companies, some of them startups where the show is a make or break moment for them, paid thousands of dollars to take a booth, maybe sponsor an event or put up some ads touting their new product.
Along comes a company that decides it's going to take advantage of all the dollars the trade show  organizer and its exhibitors just spent to get everyone in one place at one time.
Instead of participating on the show floor (and thereby adding revenue to the organization that got everyone there to begin with), they tell people to meet them in their hotel room.Watch how quickly a show like CES (or Comicon or AVN) would go away if this sort of thing were left unchecked.
You can argue the logic, but you can't say it's not standard or unusual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726402</id>
	<title>And it will continue....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with smaller companies will find anyway to save revenue if possible..</p><p>For example, the cost of the mandated "union" to plug in the 300 watts of trade show display booth lights into an electrical outlet is $150.   An an "always on" Internet at the shows are typically $500+ when if you can get the same connectivity in your room for $10.</p><p>We run our demo at the show(s) over the internet by tethering our mobile phone internet connection-  instead of paying the overinflated price for broadband at conventions.  By attending as little as two tradeshows a year more than justifies the annual costs of the data plans from any major mobile phone network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with smaller companies will find anyway to save revenue if possible..For example , the cost of the mandated " union " to plug in the 300 watts of trade show display booth lights into an electrical outlet is $ 150 .
An an " always on " Internet at the shows are typically $ 500 + when if you can get the same connectivity in your room for $ 10.We run our demo at the show ( s ) over the internet by tethering our mobile phone internet connection- instead of paying the overinflated price for broadband at conventions .
By attending as little as two tradeshows a year more than justifies the annual costs of the data plans from any major mobile phone network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with smaller companies will find anyway to save revenue if possible..For example, the cost of the mandated "union" to plug in the 300 watts of trade show display booth lights into an electrical outlet is $150.
An an "always on" Internet at the shows are typically $500+ when if you can get the same connectivity in your room for $10.We run our demo at the show(s) over the internet by tethering our mobile phone internet connection-  instead of paying the overinflated price for broadband at conventions.
By attending as little as two tradeshows a year more than justifies the annual costs of the data plans from any major mobile phone network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726052</id>
	<title>Tightening up...</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1263238560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess they really want to tighten up their grasp at other companies money.<br><br>I've always heard about these types of 'parties' from all the shows, especially CES and EEE.<br>Even Microsoft and Sony (among many others) do these for some stuff.<br>The smaller vendors have utterly relied on being able to do this.<br>Having a small booth in a 'busy' place like that can make it really hard to do a presentation of your product, not to mention restricting access when you want to keep it limited.<br>Seems a bit odd (or greedy) for them to start cracking down on it now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess they really want to tighten up their grasp at other companies money.I 've always heard about these types of 'parties ' from all the shows , especially CES and EEE.Even Microsoft and Sony ( among many others ) do these for some stuff.The smaller vendors have utterly relied on being able to do this.Having a small booth in a 'busy ' place like that can make it really hard to do a presentation of your product , not to mention restricting access when you want to keep it limited.Seems a bit odd ( or greedy ) for them to start cracking down on it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess they really want to tighten up their grasp at other companies money.I've always heard about these types of 'parties' from all the shows, especially CES and EEE.Even Microsoft and Sony (among many others) do these for some stuff.The smaller vendors have utterly relied on being able to do this.Having a small booth in a 'busy' place like that can make it really hard to do a presentation of your product, not to mention restricting access when you want to keep it limited.Seems a bit odd (or greedy) for them to start cracking down on it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728188</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1263202560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe what I said is so controversial.  Some folks are downright mad (it's my first flamebait mod).  I guess I see this differently.</p><p>If you don't have a booth at the show, how are you getting people up to your suite to look at your products?  My guess is your walking around the show floor, handing out cards or fliers and inviting people up.  If you're smart, you focusing on people who seem interested in your competitors products.  So you're drawing people away from the vendors who paid to be in the show.  Sounds like a free ride to me.</p><p>Now, if you setup in a hotel that had nothing to do with CES (wasn't hosting any part of the show) and you sent a mass email to your 40-50 customers saying, "hey, while at CES come down to the Rio, we've got a suite.  We'll liquor you up, show you some of our new products and we'll party".  I think that's a good idea.  Like you said, good bang for the buck.</p><p>When I read it my immediate thought was that these people were down on the floor trolling for customers.  Didn't sit right with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe what I said is so controversial .
Some folks are downright mad ( it 's my first flamebait mod ) .
I guess I see this differently.If you do n't have a booth at the show , how are you getting people up to your suite to look at your products ?
My guess is your walking around the show floor , handing out cards or fliers and inviting people up .
If you 're smart , you focusing on people who seem interested in your competitors products .
So you 're drawing people away from the vendors who paid to be in the show .
Sounds like a free ride to me.Now , if you setup in a hotel that had nothing to do with CES ( was n't hosting any part of the show ) and you sent a mass email to your 40-50 customers saying , " hey , while at CES come down to the Rio , we 've got a suite .
We 'll liquor you up , show you some of our new products and we 'll party " .
I think that 's a good idea .
Like you said , good bang for the buck.When I read it my immediate thought was that these people were down on the floor trolling for customers .
Did n't sit right with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe what I said is so controversial.
Some folks are downright mad (it's my first flamebait mod).
I guess I see this differently.If you don't have a booth at the show, how are you getting people up to your suite to look at your products?
My guess is your walking around the show floor, handing out cards or fliers and inviting people up.
If you're smart, you focusing on people who seem interested in your competitors products.
So you're drawing people away from the vendors who paid to be in the show.
Sounds like a free ride to me.Now, if you setup in a hotel that had nothing to do with CES (wasn't hosting any part of the show) and you sent a mass email to your 40-50 customers saying, "hey, while at CES come down to the Rio, we've got a suite.
We'll liquor you up, show you some of our new products and we'll party".
I think that's a good idea.
Like you said, good bang for the buck.When I read it my immediate thought was that these people were down on the floor trolling for customers.
Didn't sit right with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727746</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1263201060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; "I asked... They said..."</p><p>&gt; I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.</p><p>Since The Venitian is hardly the first, last, or only company that ever has fucked over/will fuck over a customer, an additional lesson is "If it's important, get it in writing." Who's to say the Bellagio or Mandalay Bay won't do this to someone else in the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; " I asked... They said... " &gt; I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.Since The Venitian is hardly the first , last , or only company that ever has fucked over/will fuck over a customer , an additional lesson is " If it 's important , get it in writing .
" Who 's to say the Bellagio or Mandalay Bay wo n't do this to someone else in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; "I asked... They said..."&gt; I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.Since The Venitian is hardly the first, last, or only company that ever has fucked over/will fuck over a customer, an additional lesson is "If it's important, get it in writing.
" Who's to say the Bellagio or Mandalay Bay won't do this to someone else in the future?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726356</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263239820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CES? Isn't that where they're showing all of that "3D" TV crap that nobody really gives a fuck about? And the next generation of locked-down mobile devices that run only the shittiest, vendor-approved apps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CES ?
Is n't that where they 're showing all of that " 3D " TV crap that nobody really gives a fuck about ?
And the next generation of locked-down mobile devices that run only the shittiest , vendor-approved apps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CES?
Isn't that where they're showing all of that "3D" TV crap that nobody really gives a fuck about?
And the next generation of locked-down mobile devices that run only the shittiest, vendor-approved apps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730208</id>
	<title>This could have been avoided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263210120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I always put up those little "Do not disturb" Signs on my room<br>Seriously, could have prevented the whole deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I always put up those little " Do not disturb " Signs on my roomSeriously , could have prevented the whole deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I always put up those little "Do not disturb" Signs on my roomSeriously, could have prevented the whole deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726618</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>Lserevi</author>
	<datestamp>1263240840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you believe an anonymous someone who, by their own admission, went out of their way to avoid paying customary fees to the organizer of the event?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you believe an anonymous someone who , by their own admission , went out of their way to avoid paying customary fees to the organizer of the event ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you believe an anonymous someone who, by their own admission, went out of their way to avoid paying customary fees to the organizer of the event?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727162</id>
	<title>New Show: CNC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CNC , which stands for CNC's Not CES is a fantastic new high-tech consumer gadgetry trade exhibition that'll be going on next year in Las Vegas, coinciding with the closed CES show.  Bring your stuff!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNC , which stands for CNC 's Not CES is a fantastic new high-tech consumer gadgetry trade exhibition that 'll be going on next year in Las Vegas , coinciding with the closed CES show .
Bring your stuff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNC , which stands for CNC's Not CES is a fantastic new high-tech consumer gadgetry trade exhibition that'll be going on next year in Las Vegas, coinciding with the closed CES show.
Bring your stuff!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726140</id>
	<title>Sounds pretty idiotic to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>CEA probably could have saved a lot of grief by warning these vendors ahead of time that it was going to do this sort of thing. Sure a number of the vendors would have worked around the rules, but that'll happen next year despite the crackdown. The vendors will just be a bit more clever.<br> <br>

Further, this just reeks of bad communication and incompetent handling by CEA and the respective hotels. If I were involved with the decision, I'd be worried about breech of contract suits from the affected vendor firms. Just from my extremely crude reading of the article, this doesn't sound like CEA or some of the hotels did due diligence in upholding their side of the exhibition contracts.<br> <br>

Finally, these sorts of antics show up when an organization is tight on money and starts ignoring long term costs and harm. One wonders if the CEA will go bankrupt in a few years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CEA probably could have saved a lot of grief by warning these vendors ahead of time that it was going to do this sort of thing .
Sure a number of the vendors would have worked around the rules , but that 'll happen next year despite the crackdown .
The vendors will just be a bit more clever .
Further , this just reeks of bad communication and incompetent handling by CEA and the respective hotels .
If I were involved with the decision , I 'd be worried about breech of contract suits from the affected vendor firms .
Just from my extremely crude reading of the article , this does n't sound like CEA or some of the hotels did due diligence in upholding their side of the exhibition contracts .
Finally , these sorts of antics show up when an organization is tight on money and starts ignoring long term costs and harm .
One wonders if the CEA will go bankrupt in a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CEA probably could have saved a lot of grief by warning these vendors ahead of time that it was going to do this sort of thing.
Sure a number of the vendors would have worked around the rules, but that'll happen next year despite the crackdown.
The vendors will just be a bit more clever.
Further, this just reeks of bad communication and incompetent handling by CEA and the respective hotels.
If I were involved with the decision, I'd be worried about breech of contract suits from the affected vendor firms.
Just from my extremely crude reading of the article, this doesn't sound like CEA or some of the hotels did due diligence in upholding their side of the exhibition contracts.
Finally, these sorts of antics show up when an organization is tight on money and starts ignoring long term costs and harm.
One wonders if the CEA will go bankrupt in a few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729420</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I prefer scantly-clad hookers and Pepsi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I prefer scantly-clad hookers and Pepsi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I prefer scantly-clad hookers and Pepsi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733550</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1263233220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a suite?  That you pay for?  That staff said had only restrictions on number of occupants (so as to comply with legal fire codes)?</p><p>I'd say they have grounds for a lawsuit.</p><p>Imagine going to any comic con, or sci-con and being thrown out of a room where you were hosting a party?!  It would be outrageous!  People often rent large rooms -- suites to be able to throw parties with lots of people sharing interests of the convention.  How is this any different?</p><p>Sounds like complete bull to me from what the story says.  Unless there was some written agreement prohibiting them from discussing or showing their interests at the convention, I'd be feeling more than a bit litigious right about now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a suite ?
That you pay for ?
That staff said had only restrictions on number of occupants ( so as to comply with legal fire codes ) ? I 'd say they have grounds for a lawsuit.Imagine going to any comic con , or sci-con and being thrown out of a room where you were hosting a party ? !
It would be outrageous !
People often rent large rooms -- suites to be able to throw parties with lots of people sharing interests of the convention .
How is this any different ? Sounds like complete bull to me from what the story says .
Unless there was some written agreement prohibiting them from discussing or showing their interests at the convention , I 'd be feeling more than a bit litigious right about now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a suite?
That you pay for?
That staff said had only restrictions on number of occupants (so as to comply with legal fire codes)?I'd say they have grounds for a lawsuit.Imagine going to any comic con, or sci-con and being thrown out of a room where you were hosting a party?!
It would be outrageous!
People often rent large rooms -- suites to be able to throw parties with lots of people sharing interests of the convention.
How is this any different?Sounds like complete bull to me from what the story says.
Unless there was some written agreement prohibiting them from discussing or showing their interests at the convention, I'd be feeling more than a bit litigious right about now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727362</id>
	<title>Duke Nukem Forever Showtime nearby at CES !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, this mean that we'll not see it for another 10 yrs ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this mean that we 'll not see it for another 10 yrs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this mean that we'll not see it for another 10 yrs ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726130</id>
	<title>Lawsuit, anyone</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1263238860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monopolistic practices.  Interference with trade.  Lost and unrecoverable revenue opportunities.  General fuckedupness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monopolistic practices .
Interference with trade .
Lost and unrecoverable revenue opportunities .
General fuckedupness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monopolistic practices.
Interference with trade.
Lost and unrecoverable revenue opportunities.
General fuckedupness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727046</id>
	<title>Renting from the CES Block of Rooms?</title>
	<author>mistapotta</author>
	<datestamp>1263242280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not mentioned in the article was did they pay for one of the (usually discounted) block of rooms CES had set aside.  Usually large conventions set aside a block of rooms at a discount for people participating in the convention.  Their guarantee subsidizes the cost of these rooms, and give them a bit more control over what goes on there.  Doesn't make their actions less ass-hat, but does let me understand why the CES would have that much sway over the occupants of the rooms, as they might have paid for (up to half) part of the rooms' cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not mentioned in the article was did they pay for one of the ( usually discounted ) block of rooms CES had set aside .
Usually large conventions set aside a block of rooms at a discount for people participating in the convention .
Their guarantee subsidizes the cost of these rooms , and give them a bit more control over what goes on there .
Does n't make their actions less ass-hat , but does let me understand why the CES would have that much sway over the occupants of the rooms , as they might have paid for ( up to half ) part of the rooms ' cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not mentioned in the article was did they pay for one of the (usually discounted) block of rooms CES had set aside.
Usually large conventions set aside a block of rooms at a discount for people participating in the convention.
Their guarantee subsidizes the cost of these rooms, and give them a bit more control over what goes on there.
Doesn't make their actions less ass-hat, but does let me understand why the CES would have that much sway over the occupants of the rooms, as they might have paid for (up to half) part of the rooms' cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729678</id>
	<title>Try tipping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try tipping the cleaning staff and maybe they'll keep their mouths shut.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try tipping the cleaning staff and maybe they 'll keep their mouths shut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try tipping the cleaning staff and maybe they'll keep their mouths shut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729600</id>
	<title>Re:Announcing competitive event for 2011</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah.... but who wants to go to Wyoming? At least when CES has slow years your still in vegas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah.... but who wants to go to Wyoming ?
At least when CES has slow years your still in vegas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah.... but who wants to go to Wyoming?
At least when CES has slow years your still in vegas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726038</id>
	<title>does AVN have the same rules?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1263238440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AVN holds the porn convention at the same time in vegas. do they have the same rules about not working in your rooms? maybe the demo was a rogue AVN guest and not CES?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AVN holds the porn convention at the same time in vegas .
do they have the same rules about not working in your rooms ?
maybe the demo was a rogue AVN guest and not CES ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AVN holds the porn convention at the same time in vegas.
do they have the same rules about not working in your rooms?
maybe the demo was a rogue AVN guest and not CES?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730700</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>ColdSam</author>
	<datestamp>1263212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just admitted that you're going there only because of the event so yes, it is a "free ride." The answer to how far away you need to go to not be getting a "free ride" is simple - far enough so that you're not getting an advantage from their event.</p><p>It may be a smart business move for you to take advantage of this free ride, but it's equally smart for CES to move you a little farther from their event, if they can. It's hard to blame them for using their business leverage when the hypothetical you tried to screw them first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just admitted that you 're going there only because of the event so yes , it is a " free ride .
" The answer to how far away you need to go to not be getting a " free ride " is simple - far enough so that you 're not getting an advantage from their event.It may be a smart business move for you to take advantage of this free ride , but it 's equally smart for CES to move you a little farther from their event , if they can .
It 's hard to blame them for using their business leverage when the hypothetical you tried to screw them first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just admitted that you're going there only because of the event so yes, it is a "free ride.
" The answer to how far away you need to go to not be getting a "free ride" is simple - far enough so that you're not getting an advantage from their event.It may be a smart business move for you to take advantage of this free ride, but it's equally smart for CES to move you a little farther from their event, if they can.
It's hard to blame them for using their business leverage when the hypothetical you tried to screw them first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727236</id>
	<title>Let them kick you out</title>
	<author>rosasaul</author>
	<datestamp>1263242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check the sign in forms for the Hotel, unless otherwise stated or a refund is issued, let them kick you out then join together in a class action law suit. Now tell me that wouldn't be hilarious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check the sign in forms for the Hotel , unless otherwise stated or a refund is issued , let them kick you out then join together in a class action law suit .
Now tell me that would n't be hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check the sign in forms for the Hotel, unless otherwise stated or a refund is issued, let them kick you out then join together in a class action law suit.
Now tell me that wouldn't be hilarious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726536</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263240540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like arguing that tech companies are getting a "free ride" by basing themselves in Silicon Valley. Or that retail stores are getting a free ride by opening shops on Main St alongside all the other stores.</p><p>The problem in the story is that CES didn't establish and publicize a policy that "satellite events" were not permitted in hotels they were booking. Why didn't they publicize this? Because it's terrible publicity of course. But they seem happy to enforce it - and other than slashdot this will probably get very little play, so it is probably a smart strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like arguing that tech companies are getting a " free ride " by basing themselves in Silicon Valley .
Or that retail stores are getting a free ride by opening shops on Main St alongside all the other stores.The problem in the story is that CES did n't establish and publicize a policy that " satellite events " were not permitted in hotels they were booking .
Why did n't they publicize this ?
Because it 's terrible publicity of course .
But they seem happy to enforce it - and other than slashdot this will probably get very little play , so it is probably a smart strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like arguing that tech companies are getting a "free ride" by basing themselves in Silicon Valley.
Or that retail stores are getting a free ride by opening shops on Main St alongside all the other stores.The problem in the story is that CES didn't establish and publicize a policy that "satellite events" were not permitted in hotels they were booking.
Why didn't they publicize this?
Because it's terrible publicity of course.
But they seem happy to enforce it - and other than slashdot this will probably get very little play, so it is probably a smart strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731344</id>
	<title>Re:The idea that...</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1263216240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1 YANAL.</p><p>In Vegas a hotel can evict you for any reason, or none at all.</p><p>And if you were stupid enough to sue, you'd find out about the Vegas court system and who owns it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 YANAL.In Vegas a hotel can evict you for any reason , or none at all.And if you were stupid enough to sue , you 'd find out about the Vegas court system and who owns it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 YANAL.In Vegas a hotel can evict you for any reason, or none at all.And if you were stupid enough to sue, you'd find out about the Vegas court system and who owns it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727536</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the title again. It's WARES not WHORES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the title again .
It 's WARES not WHORES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the title again.
It's WARES not WHORES.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30732342</id>
	<title>Event Planner perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an event manager with 7+ years experience doing business in Vegas during CES. Every hotel venue that I contacted when planning for CES 2010 stipulated that unless my clients, or one of their partner exhibitors, had space on the show floor they would be unable to rent us a hotel suite due to their contractual obligation with CEA. CEA manages the hotel blocks for CES, and in order to be a "partner hotel" (on the maps, shuttles, or advertised on the CES lodging link) the hotels must agree to not permit any "renegade" events- no meetings, no product displays. CEA claims it is to 'preserve the atmosphere of the show floor' or something similar.</p><p>The better hotels- those with suite spaces that are appropriate for meetings and showcases- have further given teeth to their policies by not allowing any rearranging of furniture. Sure, you can pay upwards of 3k for a suite, but you can't move the bed to display your hardware... in years past this was possible if you tipped the housekeeping staff well. Not so any more, management is writing it into contracts that furnishings are not to be moved.</p><p>Due to economic times, we wound up booking a banquet room in a restaurant, cutting 1/5 of our budget from last year. As CEA has less financial grip on restaurants, my guess is that this will become the only option as long as CES continues to exist.</p><p>An event planner- a professional dedicated to thorough reading of contracts and getting it all in writing- would have been a small price to pay for companies who brought their wares to Vegas and were kicked out. Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an event manager with 7 + years experience doing business in Vegas during CES .
Every hotel venue that I contacted when planning for CES 2010 stipulated that unless my clients , or one of their partner exhibitors , had space on the show floor they would be unable to rent us a hotel suite due to their contractual obligation with CEA .
CEA manages the hotel blocks for CES , and in order to be a " partner hotel " ( on the maps , shuttles , or advertised on the CES lodging link ) the hotels must agree to not permit any " renegade " events- no meetings , no product displays .
CEA claims it is to 'preserve the atmosphere of the show floor ' or something similar.The better hotels- those with suite spaces that are appropriate for meetings and showcases- have further given teeth to their policies by not allowing any rearranging of furniture .
Sure , you can pay upwards of 3k for a suite , but you ca n't move the bed to display your hardware... in years past this was possible if you tipped the housekeeping staff well .
Not so any more , management is writing it into contracts that furnishings are not to be moved.Due to economic times , we wound up booking a banquet room in a restaurant , cutting 1/5 of our budget from last year .
As CEA has less financial grip on restaurants , my guess is that this will become the only option as long as CES continues to exist.An event planner- a professional dedicated to thorough reading of contracts and getting it all in writing- would have been a small price to pay for companies who brought their wares to Vegas and were kicked out .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an event manager with 7+ years experience doing business in Vegas during CES.
Every hotel venue that I contacted when planning for CES 2010 stipulated that unless my clients, or one of their partner exhibitors, had space on the show floor they would be unable to rent us a hotel suite due to their contractual obligation with CEA.
CEA manages the hotel blocks for CES, and in order to be a "partner hotel" (on the maps, shuttles, or advertised on the CES lodging link) the hotels must agree to not permit any "renegade" events- no meetings, no product displays.
CEA claims it is to 'preserve the atmosphere of the show floor' or something similar.The better hotels- those with suite spaces that are appropriate for meetings and showcases- have further given teeth to their policies by not allowing any rearranging of furniture.
Sure, you can pay upwards of 3k for a suite, but you can't move the bed to display your hardware... in years past this was possible if you tipped the housekeeping staff well.
Not so any more, management is writing it into contracts that furnishings are not to be moved.Due to economic times, we wound up booking a banquet room in a restaurant, cutting 1/5 of our budget from last year.
As CEA has less financial grip on restaurants, my guess is that this will become the only option as long as CES continues to exist.An event planner- a professional dedicated to thorough reading of contracts and getting it all in writing- would have been a small price to pay for companies who brought their wares to Vegas and were kicked out.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726828</id>
	<title>Re:In FreeMarket America...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another retard who doesn't understand the concept of the free market but feels no shame in his ignorance and will continue to make all kinds of assumptions.<br> <br>These are the people we normally laugh at for being fools but I guess when you have all kinds of bias instead of a working model that's what you'll get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another retard who does n't understand the concept of the free market but feels no shame in his ignorance and will continue to make all kinds of assumptions .
These are the people we normally laugh at for being fools but I guess when you have all kinds of bias instead of a working model that 's what you 'll get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another retard who doesn't understand the concept of the free market but feels no shame in his ignorance and will continue to make all kinds of assumptions.
These are the people we normally laugh at for being fools but I guess when you have all kinds of bias instead of a working model that's what you'll get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727226</id>
	<title>showcasing wares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"showcasing wares" - is that what the kids are calling it these days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" showcasing wares " - is that what the kids are calling it these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"showcasing wares" - is that what the kids are calling it these days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728384</id>
	<title>Re:Announcing competitive event for 2011</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263203340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'll have hundreds of hipsters show up just for the kitsch value. When thousands show up the 2nd year, the hipsters will stop coming and claim your convention has sold out and become too mainstream. "It used to be cool, but now every common Windows user and his brother are there," said a man identifying himself only as 'Slade.' "This year I'll be showing off my tattoos, nose-rings, and Apple laptop somewhere else--somewhere where it's still ironic to have a trade show."</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have hundreds of hipsters show up just for the kitsch value .
When thousands show up the 2nd year , the hipsters will stop coming and claim your convention has sold out and become too mainstream .
" It used to be cool , but now every common Windows user and his brother are there , " said a man identifying himself only as 'Slade .
' " This year I 'll be showing off my tattoos , nose-rings , and Apple laptop somewhere else--somewhere where it 's still ironic to have a trade show .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have hundreds of hipsters show up just for the kitsch value.
When thousands show up the 2nd year, the hipsters will stop coming and claim your convention has sold out and become too mainstream.
"It used to be cool, but now every common Windows user and his brother are there," said a man identifying himself only as 'Slade.
' "This year I'll be showing off my tattoos, nose-rings, and Apple laptop somewhere else--somewhere where it's still ironic to have a trade show.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726512</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised at all.</title>
	<author>MarchTheMonth</author>
	<datestamp>1263240360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not surprised at all that the hotels kicked em to the curb. Makes sense, you have a bunch of techies that do not gamble like other conventioneers do, CES makes money (and continues to beable to have the CES because of the income), and no offense to the small players, but if you can't pay/are unwilling to pay to get on the floor, then perhaps you don't belong at CES.</p><p>From the Hotel's perspective, the removal makes complete sense. CES is bringing in money to them, paying them to have X amount of floor space, which X floor space would be larger if these small players paid to be on the floor, and are instead paying for just a room.</p><p>Which sounds more likely in Vegas: CES is really upset not to have the money and asks the small player(s) to be removed, or the Hotel is upset enough to ask them to leave because they're not making the extra money. I'm going with the latter. Vegas hotels will say one thing and then change their mind, or the front of the hotel person was incorrect on the "restrictions" (possibly even using tricky wording to think they have the freedom to have their displays in their room). My money is totally on hotel management getting wind of it and taking it upon themselves to "solve" the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not surprised at all that the hotels kicked em to the curb .
Makes sense , you have a bunch of techies that do not gamble like other conventioneers do , CES makes money ( and continues to beable to have the CES because of the income ) , and no offense to the small players , but if you ca n't pay/are unwilling to pay to get on the floor , then perhaps you do n't belong at CES.From the Hotel 's perspective , the removal makes complete sense .
CES is bringing in money to them , paying them to have X amount of floor space , which X floor space would be larger if these small players paid to be on the floor , and are instead paying for just a room.Which sounds more likely in Vegas : CES is really upset not to have the money and asks the small player ( s ) to be removed , or the Hotel is upset enough to ask them to leave because they 're not making the extra money .
I 'm going with the latter .
Vegas hotels will say one thing and then change their mind , or the front of the hotel person was incorrect on the " restrictions " ( possibly even using tricky wording to think they have the freedom to have their displays in their room ) .
My money is totally on hotel management getting wind of it and taking it upon themselves to " solve " the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not surprised at all that the hotels kicked em to the curb.
Makes sense, you have a bunch of techies that do not gamble like other conventioneers do, CES makes money (and continues to beable to have the CES because of the income), and no offense to the small players, but if you can't pay/are unwilling to pay to get on the floor, then perhaps you don't belong at CES.From the Hotel's perspective, the removal makes complete sense.
CES is bringing in money to them, paying them to have X amount of floor space, which X floor space would be larger if these small players paid to be on the floor, and are instead paying for just a room.Which sounds more likely in Vegas: CES is really upset not to have the money and asks the small player(s) to be removed, or the Hotel is upset enough to ask them to leave because they're not making the extra money.
I'm going with the latter.
Vegas hotels will say one thing and then change their mind, or the front of the hotel person was incorrect on the "restrictions" (possibly even using tricky wording to think they have the freedom to have their displays in their room).
My money is totally on hotel management getting wind of it and taking it upon themselves to "solve" the situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728416</id>
	<title>Re:Announcing competitive event for 2011</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1263203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>We are proud to announce that we will be holding a similar event in Lost Springs, WY</i>
</p><p>
Your barn looks a tad small on the outside to host a CES size event, but if you have a dog town or two nearby that's all I need to know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are proud to announce that we will be holding a similar event in Lost Springs , WY Your barn looks a tad small on the outside to host a CES size event , but if you have a dog town or two nearby that 's all I need to know : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We are proud to announce that we will be holding a similar event in Lost Springs, WY

Your barn looks a tad small on the outside to host a CES size event, but if you have a dog town or two nearby that's all I need to know :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</id>
	<title>That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vendors have been showing their products in hotel hospitality suites for decades.  I've never been to any trade show yet where this wasn't the case.  I don't know what the hell CES management is thinking if they consider this any kind of a problem.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vendors have been showing their products in hotel hospitality suites for decades .
I 've never been to any trade show yet where this was n't the case .
I do n't know what the hell CES management is thinking if they consider this any kind of a problem.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vendors have been showing their products in hotel hospitality suites for decades.
I've never been to any trade show yet where this wasn't the case.
I don't know what the hell CES management is thinking if they consider this any kind of a problem.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1263239040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I mean I'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management."</i>
<br> <br>
you didn't RTFA:  "the vendor's chief representative reports that they had <b>contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites.  The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not</b>....  "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.  They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties. ""
<br> <br>
<b>I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.</b>  If I want to get a hotel, then invite a few people over to view a new laptop, what business is that of CES?  I know CES doesn't want to lose money, but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths.  Intel isn't going to bring people back to a hotel room, and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be, whether they're in their room or on the floor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I mean I 'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management .
" you did n't RTFA : " the vendor 's chief representative reports that they had contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites .
The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not.... " I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite .
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties .
" " I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian .
If I want to get a hotel , then invite a few people over to view a new laptop , what business is that of CES ?
I know CES does n't want to lose money , but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths .
Intel is n't going to bring people back to a hotel room , and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be , whether they 're in their room or on the floor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I mean I'm not a show vendor and I even know that doing such things is not ok with hotel management.
"
 
you didn't RTFA:  "the vendor's chief representative reports that they had contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites.
The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not....  "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties.
""
 
I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.
If I want to get a hotel, then invite a few people over to view a new laptop, what business is that of CES?
I know CES doesn't want to lose money, but really these small businesses are just moving out of the way for the big guys to get more booths.
Intel isn't going to bring people back to a hotel room, and the more companies you have in Las Vegas that week the bigger CES will be, whether they're in their room or on the floor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I've never been to any trade show yet where this wasn't the case."</p><p>Even companies that have floor space MOST have some sort of suite where the big guys can come in and play with the gear without having to deal with the riffraff.</p><p>I'm headed out to a show in a few days in LA that I've been invited to a few...last time I was out there, I thought I was meeting up with the pres of an overseas company to see his products, and it ended up being a suite full of scantily dressed hookers and coke.  Only speaking broken Japanese, I apologized to the gentleman as I figured I had the wrong room.</p><p>I quickly got the hell out of there...my buddy, however, decided to stick around for a while...turns out it WAS the guy were were supposed to meet!</p><p>They had one of the biggest sq ft on the floor, bit there was OBVIOUSLY a reason he needed to have his suite private...kinda wish I had stuck around!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've never been to any trade show yet where this was n't the case .
" Even companies that have floor space MOST have some sort of suite where the big guys can come in and play with the gear without having to deal with the riffraff.I 'm headed out to a show in a few days in LA that I 've been invited to a few...last time I was out there , I thought I was meeting up with the pres of an overseas company to see his products , and it ended up being a suite full of scantily dressed hookers and coke .
Only speaking broken Japanese , I apologized to the gentleman as I figured I had the wrong room.I quickly got the hell out of there...my buddy , however , decided to stick around for a while...turns out it WAS the guy were were supposed to meet ! They had one of the biggest sq ft on the floor , bit there was OBVIOUSLY a reason he needed to have his suite private...kinda wish I had stuck around !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've never been to any trade show yet where this wasn't the case.
"Even companies that have floor space MOST have some sort of suite where the big guys can come in and play with the gear without having to deal with the riffraff.I'm headed out to a show in a few days in LA that I've been invited to a few...last time I was out there, I thought I was meeting up with the pres of an overseas company to see his products, and it ended up being a suite full of scantily dressed hookers and coke.
Only speaking broken Japanese, I apologized to the gentleman as I figured I had the wrong room.I quickly got the hell out of there...my buddy, however, decided to stick around for a while...turns out it WAS the guy were were supposed to meet!They had one of the biggest sq ft on the floor, bit there was OBVIOUSLY a reason he needed to have his suite private...kinda wish I had stuck around!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726596</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1263240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.</p></div><p>The real lesson is to get it in writing.<br>If you can't have it in writing then, at a bare minimum,<br>document who you talked to, when, and what was said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.The real lesson is to get it in writing.If you ca n't have it in writing then , at a bare minimum,document who you talked to , when , and what was said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real lesson here is not to stay at The Venetian.The real lesson is to get it in writing.If you can't have it in writing then, at a bare minimum,document who you talked to, when, and what was said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727278</id>
	<title>Maybe CES will go the way of COMDEX</title>
	<author>t0qer</author>
	<datestamp>1263242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sort of remember at the end of the 90's comdex was grabbing for straws and overstepping its power much the way CES is now.  From Wikipedia;<blockquote><div><p>Following COMDEX Fall 1999 (in Las Vegas), organizers made major changes to their criteria for admission of media, rejecting nearly all but those who were on editorial assignment from a handful of "acknowledged" trade papers. Though offered regular "public" attendance, this left hundreds of regular, long-standing press attendees from magazines and newspapers around the world with bad feelings toward the show. As press credentials were necessary to gain the level of access necessary to make the expensive trip worthwhile, most refused to go and many told vendors that they would disregard product announcements made at or in relation to COMDEX.</p></div></blockquote><p>

History repeating?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of remember at the end of the 90 's comdex was grabbing for straws and overstepping its power much the way CES is now .
From Wikipedia ; Following COMDEX Fall 1999 ( in Las Vegas ) , organizers made major changes to their criteria for admission of media , rejecting nearly all but those who were on editorial assignment from a handful of " acknowledged " trade papers .
Though offered regular " public " attendance , this left hundreds of regular , long-standing press attendees from magazines and newspapers around the world with bad feelings toward the show .
As press credentials were necessary to gain the level of access necessary to make the expensive trip worthwhile , most refused to go and many told vendors that they would disregard product announcements made at or in relation to COMDEX .
History repeating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of remember at the end of the 90's comdex was grabbing for straws and overstepping its power much the way CES is now.
From Wikipedia;Following COMDEX Fall 1999 (in Las Vegas), organizers made major changes to their criteria for admission of media, rejecting nearly all but those who were on editorial assignment from a handful of "acknowledged" trade papers.
Though offered regular "public" attendance, this left hundreds of regular, long-standing press attendees from magazines and newspapers around the world with bad feelings toward the show.
As press credentials were necessary to gain the level of access necessary to make the expensive trip worthwhile, most refused to go and many told vendors that they would disregard product announcements made at or in relation to COMDEX.
History repeating?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727080</id>
	<title>Re:Tightening up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell is happening to peoples' ability to write paragraphs? Everwhere more and more people are writing lots of sentences as individual paragraphs, seemingly unable to group the related ones. It's maddening to read and witness!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is happening to peoples ' ability to write paragraphs ?
Everwhere more and more people are writing lots of sentences as individual paragraphs , seemingly unable to group the related ones .
It 's maddening to read and witness !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is happening to peoples' ability to write paragraphs?
Everwhere more and more people are writing lots of sentences as individual paragraphs, seemingly unable to group the related ones.
It's maddening to read and witness!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728680</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1263204300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you didn't RTFA: "the vendor's chief representative reports that they had contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites. The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not.... "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite. They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties. ""</p> </div><p>Did he talk to the <i>Manager</i> or some other "supervisory" type? Or did he talk to some Front Desk Monkey? Perhaps he was given bad information?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you did n't RTFA : " the vendor 's chief representative reports that they had contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites .
The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not.... " I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite .
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties .
" " Did he talk to the Manager or some other " supervisory " type ?
Or did he talk to some Front Desk Monkey ?
Perhaps he was given bad information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you didn't RTFA: "the vendor's chief representative reports that they had contacted the hotel management before the show and asked if there were any limitations on showing product in the suites.
The hotel management at The Venetian reportedly said there were not.... "I asked the hotel staff if there were any limitations for using the suite.
They said the only limitations were how many people were at our parties.
"" Did he talk to the Manager or some other "supervisory" type?
Or did he talk to some Front Desk Monkey?
Perhaps he was given bad information?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730134</id>
	<title>At a bare minimum, Chargeback</title>
	<author>Fencepost</author>
	<datestamp>1263209820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If nothing else, the companies that booked directly with the hotels and were not getting CES/CEA special rates should be able to initiate chargebacks (because odds are high it was all paid for on someone's credit card). They contracted for a service, that service was aggressively not delivered.<br><br>The drawback to this is the possibility of not being able to book into the same hotel in the future, at least not under the same name. Similarly, if the hotels share information (any legal issues with that?) possibly being effectively blacklisted from that whole area of Vegas.<br><br>If you want to get lawyers involved, there may be other claims as others have pointed out, but that probably gets more risky and potentially expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , the companies that booked directly with the hotels and were not getting CES/CEA special rates should be able to initiate chargebacks ( because odds are high it was all paid for on someone 's credit card ) .
They contracted for a service , that service was aggressively not delivered.The drawback to this is the possibility of not being able to book into the same hotel in the future , at least not under the same name .
Similarly , if the hotels share information ( any legal issues with that ?
) possibly being effectively blacklisted from that whole area of Vegas.If you want to get lawyers involved , there may be other claims as others have pointed out , but that probably gets more risky and potentially expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, the companies that booked directly with the hotels and were not getting CES/CEA special rates should be able to initiate chargebacks (because odds are high it was all paid for on someone's credit card).
They contracted for a service, that service was aggressively not delivered.The drawback to this is the possibility of not being able to book into the same hotel in the future, at least not under the same name.
Similarly, if the hotels share information (any legal issues with that?
) possibly being effectively blacklisted from that whole area of Vegas.If you want to get lawyers involved, there may be other claims as others have pointed out, but that probably gets more risky and potentially expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729258</id>
	<title>Refunded for time \_not\_ spent in room</title>
	<author>lq\_x\_pl</author>
	<datestamp>1263206340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From how the TFA reads, the rooms were reserved, and paid-for, in advance by the attendees.  Upon their removal, it does not sound as though there was any refund for the remainder of their stay.  If there was no cite-able misconduct from the attendees, the hotels are setting themselves up for some annoying legal activity.  I say 'annoying' because I am sure a Vegas hotel can pony up much nicer attorneys than a small tech start-up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From how the TFA reads , the rooms were reserved , and paid-for , in advance by the attendees .
Upon their removal , it does not sound as though there was any refund for the remainder of their stay .
If there was no cite-able misconduct from the attendees , the hotels are setting themselves up for some annoying legal activity .
I say 'annoying ' because I am sure a Vegas hotel can pony up much nicer attorneys than a small tech start-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From how the TFA reads, the rooms were reserved, and paid-for, in advance by the attendees.
Upon their removal, it does not sound as though there was any refund for the remainder of their stay.
If there was no cite-able misconduct from the attendees, the hotels are setting themselves up for some annoying legal activity.
I say 'annoying' because I am sure a Vegas hotel can pony up much nicer attorneys than a small tech start-up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731782</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1263218940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Written contracts (such as the one guests sign when they check in at the Venetian) override oral promises.  IAAL.</p><p>Fail to learn this and you will be whining every time you buy a used car or join a health club.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Written contracts ( such as the one guests sign when they check in at the Venetian ) override oral promises .
IAAL.Fail to learn this and you will be whining every time you buy a used car or join a health club .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Written contracts (such as the one guests sign when they check in at the Venetian) override oral promises.
IAAL.Fail to learn this and you will be whining every time you buy a used car or join a health club.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728958</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>sosume</author>
	<datestamp>1263205320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for a replacement for the CES, I'd say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. never bite the hand that feeds you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for a replacement for the CES , I 'd say .. never bite the hand that feeds you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for a replacement for the CES, I'd say .. never bite the hand that feeds you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204</id>
	<title>In FreeMarket America...</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1263239220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... no competition is allowed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... no competition is allowed ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no competition is allowed ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727458</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>pj2541</author>
	<datestamp>1263243360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the privacy aspects (and call a lawyer, fast!)<br> <br>

1:  A cleaning person observes something in a hotel room (it's set up to demo equipment) and informs the hotel management.  Note that this is behavior which happens all the time in Vegas, and is not objectionable.<br> <br>

2:  The hotel management reports this (the contents of my hotel room) to a third party (CEA) who then convinces the hotel to act on this information.<br> <br>

Here's where I need a lawyer.  I don't know what specific laws they violated, but I feel violated, and I'm going to sue that hotel until I own it.<br> <br>

As an example, assume that a person was having an affair, and the hotel reported the name of the mistress to the wife, leading to a divorce.  I'm pretty sure that hotel could be sued successfully for the breach of privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the privacy aspects ( and call a lawyer , fast !
) 1 : A cleaning person observes something in a hotel room ( it 's set up to demo equipment ) and informs the hotel management .
Note that this is behavior which happens all the time in Vegas , and is not objectionable .
2 : The hotel management reports this ( the contents of my hotel room ) to a third party ( CEA ) who then convinces the hotel to act on this information .
Here 's where I need a lawyer .
I do n't know what specific laws they violated , but I feel violated , and I 'm going to sue that hotel until I own it .
As an example , assume that a person was having an affair , and the hotel reported the name of the mistress to the wife , leading to a divorce .
I 'm pretty sure that hotel could be sued successfully for the breach of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the privacy aspects (and call a lawyer, fast!
) 

1:  A cleaning person observes something in a hotel room (it's set up to demo equipment) and informs the hotel management.
Note that this is behavior which happens all the time in Vegas, and is not objectionable.
2:  The hotel management reports this (the contents of my hotel room) to a third party (CEA) who then convinces the hotel to act on this information.
Here's where I need a lawyer.
I don't know what specific laws they violated, but I feel violated, and I'm going to sue that hotel until I own it.
As an example, assume that a person was having an affair, and the hotel reported the name of the mistress to the wife, leading to a divorce.
I'm pretty sure that hotel could be sued successfully for the breach of privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726026</id>
	<title>They were no kicked out for showcasing wares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were kicked out for placing improperly licensed chocolates on hotel pillows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were kicked out for placing improperly licensed chocolates on hotel pillows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were kicked out for placing improperly licensed chocolates on hotel pillows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727146</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>ShadowBlasko</author>
	<datestamp>1263242580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it seems to depend on the market.</p><p>I've done fetish shows and high end precious and semi-precious gemstone shows where I would estimate that at least 50\% of the selling goes on before or after hours.</p><p>Basically, any kind of product where;<br>1) The retailer may not be comfortable with the products for fear of blackmail [Just because you are a high end jewelry and clothing boutique, doesn't mean you don't sell latex corsets and vac beds on weekends]<br>2) Prices are based more on what the seller knows than what the product is worth. [gem shows are huge for that kind of thing.<br>3) Where price depends on venue. [That $200 piece of white turquoise might be worth $100 in Tuscon, but $500 in Chicaqo] So prices are best discussed in a private setting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it seems to depend on the market.I 've done fetish shows and high end precious and semi-precious gemstone shows where I would estimate that at least 50 \ % of the selling goes on before or after hours.Basically , any kind of product where ; 1 ) The retailer may not be comfortable with the products for fear of blackmail [ Just because you are a high end jewelry and clothing boutique , does n't mean you do n't sell latex corsets and vac beds on weekends ] 2 ) Prices are based more on what the seller knows than what the product is worth .
[ gem shows are huge for that kind of thing.3 ) Where price depends on venue .
[ That $ 200 piece of white turquoise might be worth $ 100 in Tuscon , but $ 500 in Chicaqo ] So prices are best discussed in a private setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it seems to depend on the market.I've done fetish shows and high end precious and semi-precious gemstone shows where I would estimate that at least 50\% of the selling goes on before or after hours.Basically, any kind of product where;1) The retailer may not be comfortable with the products for fear of blackmail [Just because you are a high end jewelry and clothing boutique, doesn't mean you don't sell latex corsets and vac beds on weekends]2) Prices are based more on what the seller knows than what the product is worth.
[gem shows are huge for that kind of thing.3) Where price depends on venue.
[That $200 piece of white turquoise might be worth $100 in Tuscon, but $500 in Chicaqo] So prices are best discussed in a private setting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726002</id>
	<title>wrong tag line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263238200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this should be a YRO article</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this should be a YRO article</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this should be a YRO article</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432</id>
	<title>Announcing competitive event for 2011</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263240060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are proud to announce that we will be holding a similar event in Lost Springs, WY and that there will be absolutely no restriction on what participants may do. Also, the fees we are going to charge will be ridiculously low compared to what it costs in Vegas.</p><p>Stay tuned for updates.</p><p>You can look here for directions :</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost\_Springs,\_Wyoming" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost\_Springs,\_Wyoming</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Lost+Springs&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=32.252269,72.158203&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Lost+Springs,+Converse,+Wyoming&amp;ll=42.863886,-105.314941&amp;spn=0.93208,2.254944&amp;z=9" title="google.com">http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Lost+Springs&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=32.252269,72.158203&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Lost+Springs,+Converse,+Wyoming&amp;ll=42.863886,-105.314941&amp;spn=0.93208,2.254944&amp;z=9</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are proud to announce that we will be holding a similar event in Lost Springs , WY and that there will be absolutely no restriction on what participants may do .
Also , the fees we are going to charge will be ridiculously low compared to what it costs in Vegas.Stay tuned for updates.You can look here for directions : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost \ _Springs , \ _Wyoming [ wikipedia.org ] http : //maps.google.com/maps ? f = q&amp;source = s \ _q&amp;hl = en&amp;geocode = &amp;q = Lost + Springs&amp;sll = 37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn = 32.252269,72.158203&amp;ie = UTF8&amp;hq = &amp;hnear = Lost + Springs , + Converse , + Wyoming&amp;ll = 42.863886,-105.314941&amp;spn = 0.93208,2.254944&amp;z = 9 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are proud to announce that we will be holding a similar event in Lost Springs, WY and that there will be absolutely no restriction on what participants may do.
Also, the fees we are going to charge will be ridiculously low compared to what it costs in Vegas.Stay tuned for updates.You can look here for directions :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost\_Springs,\_Wyoming [wikipedia.org]http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Lost+Springs&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=32.252269,72.158203&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Lost+Springs,+Converse,+Wyoming&amp;ll=42.863886,-105.314941&amp;spn=0.93208,2.254944&amp;z=9 [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729528</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way to do it fairly, it to simply add the CES 'fee' to the room rate for the week. Going in after people booked the room and started using it, making up new 'rules' as they see fit is bait and switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to do it fairly , it to simply add the CES 'fee ' to the room rate for the week .
Going in after people booked the room and started using it , making up new 'rules ' as they see fit is bait and switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to do it fairly, it to simply add the CES 'fee' to the room rate for the week.
Going in after people booked the room and started using it, making up new 'rules' as they see fit is bait and switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726590</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news why?</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1263240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait what? He should be modded down because you disagree with him? There is no -1 disagree moderation moderation is not for burying people who's opinions don't line up perfectly or nearly so with yours. Although to be fair that is how most people seem to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait what ?
He should be modded down because you disagree with him ?
There is no -1 disagree moderation moderation is not for burying people who 's opinions do n't line up perfectly or nearly so with yours .
Although to be fair that is how most people seem to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait what?
He should be modded down because you disagree with him?
There is no -1 disagree moderation moderation is not for burying people who's opinions don't line up perfectly or nearly so with yours.
Although to be fair that is how most people seem to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729084</id>
	<title>the shit hit the fan then.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263205800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ces, enjoy your bad publicity. also you will need to promote your next round with your own money, for we, the people on the internet wont be linking your greedfuck show around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ces , enjoy your bad publicity .
also you will need to promote your next round with your own money , for we , the people on the internet wont be linking your greedfuck show around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ces, enjoy your bad publicity.
also you will need to promote your next round with your own money, for we, the people on the internet wont be linking your greedfuck show around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726058</id>
	<title>Pretty disgusting</title>
	<author>HEbGb</author>
	<datestamp>1263238560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CEA can institute whatever rules it wants on its own show property, but it has no business or right to interfere with anything (ahem) going on in local Las Vegas hotel rooms.</p><p>Similarly, unless the hotel informed them of some restriction, and as long as they abided by all of their usual rules, they have no basis for throwing them out, at all.  I hope these companies fight this.  At the very least, there's remedy in small-claims action.  And obviously they should dispute any credit card charges from the hotel.</p><p>They're probably desperate from the declining numbers, and revenue, and are in financial trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CEA can institute whatever rules it wants on its own show property , but it has no business or right to interfere with anything ( ahem ) going on in local Las Vegas hotel rooms.Similarly , unless the hotel informed them of some restriction , and as long as they abided by all of their usual rules , they have no basis for throwing them out , at all .
I hope these companies fight this .
At the very least , there 's remedy in small-claims action .
And obviously they should dispute any credit card charges from the hotel.They 're probably desperate from the declining numbers , and revenue , and are in financial trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CEA can institute whatever rules it wants on its own show property, but it has no business or right to interfere with anything (ahem) going on in local Las Vegas hotel rooms.Similarly, unless the hotel informed them of some restriction, and as long as they abided by all of their usual rules, they have no basis for throwing them out, at all.
I hope these companies fight this.
At the very least, there's remedy in small-claims action.
And obviously they should dispute any credit card charges from the hotel.They're probably desperate from the declining numbers, and revenue, and are in financial trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30736410</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263308640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it will all come down to the contracts in the end.... and ultimately CEA behaved poorly as did the Hotel.</p><p>However, having been a trade show exhibitor for years, I have a strong opinion on the subject. Exhibitors pay large sums of money for personal exposure to players in our specific industry, to make business connections and further our business interests, as I said we pay large sums of money for this exposure. The governing/organizing body of these shows makes a sack full of loot for setting the whole situation up. It is against the terms of admission, for our industry and typical show venue anyway, to disperse promotional materials of ANY KIND on the trade show floor if you are not a paying exhibitor.....this activity is reserved for the vendors WHO PAID specifically for this access to business contacts.</p><p>Additionally, we always reserve suite space at a nearby hotel to further interact with key players of interest and allow them more intimate exposure to our offerings, some nice food and drinks.</p><p>To have guerrilla vendors walking the floor, that we paid for, handing out materials and siphoning business contacts away, perhaps in direct competition to a paying vendor is wrong.</p><p>The Hotel, buy allowing non-participating vendors, to show their wares for simply the cost of a room undermines the event.</p><p>Why should I pay 50K to exhibit in the show, when I could simply pay 10K, cruise the floor handing out invites and re-direct attendees to my room.</p><p>The only pertinent question, to me, is  why are these vendors not in the suites showing their stuff weeks before or after the CES? Because the only time this concentration of individuals with this common interest are assembled there is during the even, which CEA setup, and all the legitimate vendors PAID FOR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it will all come down to the contracts in the end.... and ultimately CEA behaved poorly as did the Hotel.However , having been a trade show exhibitor for years , I have a strong opinion on the subject .
Exhibitors pay large sums of money for personal exposure to players in our specific industry , to make business connections and further our business interests , as I said we pay large sums of money for this exposure .
The governing/organizing body of these shows makes a sack full of loot for setting the whole situation up .
It is against the terms of admission , for our industry and typical show venue anyway , to disperse promotional materials of ANY KIND on the trade show floor if you are not a paying exhibitor.....this activity is reserved for the vendors WHO PAID specifically for this access to business contacts.Additionally , we always reserve suite space at a nearby hotel to further interact with key players of interest and allow them more intimate exposure to our offerings , some nice food and drinks.To have guerrilla vendors walking the floor , that we paid for , handing out materials and siphoning business contacts away , perhaps in direct competition to a paying vendor is wrong.The Hotel , buy allowing non-participating vendors , to show their wares for simply the cost of a room undermines the event.Why should I pay 50K to exhibit in the show , when I could simply pay 10K , cruise the floor handing out invites and re-direct attendees to my room.The only pertinent question , to me , is why are these vendors not in the suites showing their stuff weeks before or after the CES ?
Because the only time this concentration of individuals with this common interest are assembled there is during the even , which CEA setup , and all the legitimate vendors PAID FOR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it will all come down to the contracts in the end.... and ultimately CEA behaved poorly as did the Hotel.However, having been a trade show exhibitor for years, I have a strong opinion on the subject.
Exhibitors pay large sums of money for personal exposure to players in our specific industry, to make business connections and further our business interests, as I said we pay large sums of money for this exposure.
The governing/organizing body of these shows makes a sack full of loot for setting the whole situation up.
It is against the terms of admission, for our industry and typical show venue anyway, to disperse promotional materials of ANY KIND on the trade show floor if you are not a paying exhibitor.....this activity is reserved for the vendors WHO PAID specifically for this access to business contacts.Additionally, we always reserve suite space at a nearby hotel to further interact with key players of interest and allow them more intimate exposure to our offerings, some nice food and drinks.To have guerrilla vendors walking the floor, that we paid for, handing out materials and siphoning business contacts away, perhaps in direct competition to a paying vendor is wrong.The Hotel, buy allowing non-participating vendors, to show their wares for simply the cost of a room undermines the event.Why should I pay 50K to exhibit in the show, when I could simply pay 10K, cruise the floor handing out invites and re-direct attendees to my room.The only pertinent question, to me, is  why are these vendors not in the suites showing their stuff weeks before or after the CES?
Because the only time this concentration of individuals with this common interest are assembled there is during the even, which CEA setup, and all the legitimate vendors PAID FOR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>wramsdel</author>
	<datestamp>1263239880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're damn straight, and there's nothing wrong with it.  When 40-50 of your customers are in one place at the same time, you'd be an absolute fool not to go there and meet with them.  It's the most bang for the buck you'll get all year.  How far, exactly, do you need to be from the show floor before you're not trying to "get a free ride"?  If I'm at CES and a buddy of mine's at CES, and we get together and talk business somewhere on the strip, are we trying to "get a free ride" because we're not buying the CEA's beer?  Where's that line drawn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're damn straight , and there 's nothing wrong with it .
When 40-50 of your customers are in one place at the same time , you 'd be an absolute fool not to go there and meet with them .
It 's the most bang for the buck you 'll get all year .
How far , exactly , do you need to be from the show floor before you 're not trying to " get a free ride " ?
If I 'm at CES and a buddy of mine 's at CES , and we get together and talk business somewhere on the strip , are we trying to " get a free ride " because we 're not buying the CEA 's beer ?
Where 's that line drawn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're damn straight, and there's nothing wrong with it.
When 40-50 of your customers are in one place at the same time, you'd be an absolute fool not to go there and meet with them.
It's the most bang for the buck you'll get all year.
How far, exactly, do you need to be from the show floor before you're not trying to "get a free ride"?
If I'm at CES and a buddy of mine's at CES, and we get together and talk business somewhere on the strip, are we trying to "get a free ride" because we're not buying the CEA's beer?
Where's that line drawn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729542</id>
	<title>Re:In FreeMarket America...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, free market is YOU<i>!!</i></p><p>no wait, that's not right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , free market is YOU !
! no wait , that 's not right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, free market is YOU!
!no wait, that's not right...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726280</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>wramsdel</author>
	<datestamp>1263239580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seconded.  I've been to CES a number of times with a wireless startup, and we've always been in suites in the hotels.  There's no way they don't know exactly what's going on when they see us roll up in a loaded minivan with boxes that say "Dell" all over them.  We chose suites for two reasons: the obvious expense aspect, and there is no way we'd try to demo on the show floor...the RF environment is just too congested.  It's also a much nicer way to engage a customer, and gives them a break from the insanity of the floor.  I can't imagine that the use of suites will ever go away...CEA will just find a way to drive the cost up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded .
I 've been to CES a number of times with a wireless startup , and we 've always been in suites in the hotels .
There 's no way they do n't know exactly what 's going on when they see us roll up in a loaded minivan with boxes that say " Dell " all over them .
We chose suites for two reasons : the obvious expense aspect , and there is no way we 'd try to demo on the show floor...the RF environment is just too congested .
It 's also a much nicer way to engage a customer , and gives them a break from the insanity of the floor .
I ca n't imagine that the use of suites will ever go away...CEA will just find a way to drive the cost up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded.
I've been to CES a number of times with a wireless startup, and we've always been in suites in the hotels.
There's no way they don't know exactly what's going on when they see us roll up in a loaded minivan with boxes that say "Dell" all over them.
We chose suites for two reasons: the obvious expense aspect, and there is no way we'd try to demo on the show floor...the RF environment is just too congested.
It's also a much nicer way to engage a customer, and gives them a break from the insanity of the floor.
I can't imagine that the use of suites will ever go away...CEA will just find a way to drive the cost up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726034</id>
	<title>It's like</title>
	<author>MikeyinVA</author>
	<datestamp>1263238440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wi-fi and tables are available at the bookstore but they don't expect you to run your business, host clients, create displays on the tables (seen this done before!).  CES and Vegas in general benefit from having a formal process and presenteres paying a fee and going through a process.  Of course the hotel (and Vegas and CES) wouldn't want this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wi-fi and tables are available at the bookstore but they do n't expect you to run your business , host clients , create displays on the tables ( seen this done before ! ) .
CES and Vegas in general benefit from having a formal process and presenteres paying a fee and going through a process .
Of course the hotel ( and Vegas and CES ) would n't want this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wi-fi and tables are available at the bookstore but they don't expect you to run your business, host clients, create displays on the tables (seen this done before!).
CES and Vegas in general benefit from having a formal process and presenteres paying a fee and going through a process.
Of course the hotel (and Vegas and CES) wouldn't want this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728048</id>
	<title>Re:That is positively asinine.</title>
	<author>jekewa</author>
	<datestamp>1263202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been to a handful of these shows, and it seldom fails that if you're in the right market in the right vendor's kiosk when the conversation turns the right way, they'll invite you to their room off the floor for a better the peek at the goods. If for no other reason than to remove you from the area of the competition. They shine on with food and drink and free t-shirts, too. If you're a looky-loo, no go, but if you're on the brink of purchasing or implementing, and you're either good with or not full of BS, someone will take you up an elevator to the private party.</p><p>Perhaps these folks weren't ALSO displaying their wares on the floor? Someone got crabby because they were bypassing the system, just trying to take advantage of the nearby foot traffic.</p><p>I guess I can see the comparison to someone who pulls their van up to the alley beside the bazaar instead of paying for a table within. No one in the flea market likes that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been to a handful of these shows , and it seldom fails that if you 're in the right market in the right vendor 's kiosk when the conversation turns the right way , they 'll invite you to their room off the floor for a better the peek at the goods .
If for no other reason than to remove you from the area of the competition .
They shine on with food and drink and free t-shirts , too .
If you 're a looky-loo , no go , but if you 're on the brink of purchasing or implementing , and you 're either good with or not full of BS , someone will take you up an elevator to the private party.Perhaps these folks were n't ALSO displaying their wares on the floor ?
Someone got crabby because they were bypassing the system , just trying to take advantage of the nearby foot traffic.I guess I can see the comparison to someone who pulls their van up to the alley beside the bazaar instead of paying for a table within .
No one in the flea market likes that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been to a handful of these shows, and it seldom fails that if you're in the right market in the right vendor's kiosk when the conversation turns the right way, they'll invite you to their room off the floor for a better the peek at the goods.
If for no other reason than to remove you from the area of the competition.
They shine on with food and drink and free t-shirts, too.
If you're a looky-loo, no go, but if you're on the brink of purchasing or implementing, and you're either good with or not full of BS, someone will take you up an elevator to the private party.Perhaps these folks weren't ALSO displaying their wares on the floor?
Someone got crabby because they were bypassing the system, just trying to take advantage of the nearby foot traffic.I guess I can see the comparison to someone who pulls their van up to the alley beside the bazaar instead of paying for a table within.
No one in the flea market likes that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726300</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds pretty idiotic to me</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1263239640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vendors will just be a bit more clever.</p></div><p>Like refusing maid service. Its not that hard to place a "Do not disturb" sign on the door.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vendors will just be a bit more clever.Like refusing maid service .
Its not that hard to place a " Do not disturb " sign on the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vendors will just be a bit more clever.Like refusing maid service.
Its not that hard to place a "Do not disturb" sign on the door.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726140</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30743926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30736410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1555228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30734918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30743926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726370
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30728188
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30734918
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30736410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30731344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30733080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30730288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1555228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30729542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30727892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1555228.30726828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
